Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Birmingham Corporation Bill.

Lords Amendments considered.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Dennis Herbert): Some of these Amendments are consequential upon the passing of the Special Enactments (Extension of Time) Act, 1940, and the others are purely of a drafting nature.

Lords Amendments agreed to.

Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with)—

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Gosport Water Bill [Lords].

The Monmouthshire and South Wales Employers' Mutual Indemnity Society Limited Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time.

SOUTH SUBURBAN GAS BILL [Lords].

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

TAUNTON CORPORATION BILL.

Read the Third time, and passed.

LOCHABER WATER POWER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — (ARMED FORCES) GROUP INSURANCE.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will

have a full copy of the report of the inquiry which has been carried out by his Department into certain cases of group insurance by the Legal and General Insurance Company, in respect of men who have joined the Forces, placed in the Library of the House of Commons for perusal by Members of the House, in view of the far-reaching consequences of this inquiry to all insured under group insurance schemes, not only with the Legal and General Insurance Company, but with all insurance companies?

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Andrew Duncan): No such report has been made; but the position was fully set out in the answer given to my hon. Friend on 4th June and in the statement made by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, on the same day in connection with the Debate on the Superannuation Schemes (War Service) Bill.

Mr. De la Bère: Would it not be fair to remember that the Board of Trade acted with commendable promptitude in this matter, and is it not very desirable that the Legal and General Insurance Company should carry out the recommendations without any further delay or without any policy of laisseż faire? Could my right hon. Friend tell me whether this is being done?

Sir A. Duncan: Yes, Sir; I am informed that the company are this week sending a circular to all the employers concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

LOSSES AT SEA.

Mr. Mort: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether our losses at sea are included in the imports and exports Returns?

Sir A. Duncan: As the Trade Accounts of the United Kingdom show the goods exported and imported, they include goods sent from this country which may subsequently be lost at sea and they do not include goods despatched to this country which fail to arrive.

ARMS PURCHASES.

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether our published import figures are inclusive of arms purchases?

Sir A. Duncan: It would not be in the public interest to add details to what is now published in the trade accounts.

EXPORTS.

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the President of the Board of Trade what are the chief items in our exports at the present time, and what percentage of the whole does each represent?

Sir A. Duncan: As has been stated in reply to previous Questions, the publication of particulars of our trade in individual commodities has been suspended since the outbreak of war, but the hon. Member will find in the published monthly Trade Accounts particulars of the value of the principal groups of commodities concerned in our export trade.

Mr. David Adams: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps are being taken to push our export trade with the South American Republics; and is there reason to believe that some of the gaps in this market have already been filled by the United States of America and other neutrals?

Mr. Emery: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the export groups have, by reorganising their local selling methods in Brazil, and by improved personal salesmanship in that country, tried to recapture the lost sales to Brazil of coal, caustic soda, tyres, cotton yarns and thread, and china and sanitary ware; and with what results?

Sir A. Duncan: Special attention has been given by the Export Council, in consultation with the Export Groups, to the South American markets. Whilst substantial increases have already been obtained in some products, our own and allied Service demands on certain raw materials make it impossible for this country to fill some of the more important gaps which war circumstances have made. Continuous attention, however, is being directed to the possibilities of expanding our trade in these markets.

Mr. Adams: The Minister will agree that there is wide scope for additional export trade to these particular countries?

Sir A. Duncan: Yes, Sir, but the widest scope unhappily is with products needing raw materials which must, in present circumstances, be directed to urgent Service requirements.

Mr. S. O. Davies: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is intended to give financial assistance to export groups?

Sir A. Duncan: No, Sir.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether there are any export commodities which are quoted at differential rates according to the country to which they are exported?

Sir A. Duncan: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Davidson: Are lists published giving those differential rates?

Sir A. Duncan: No, Sir, and I think it must be obvious that it would be most injudicious to make a publication of that kind.

Mr. Davidson: But is the Minister aware that a considerable amount of prejudice has been created by those differential rates?

Sir A. Duncan: No, Sir, I am not aware of anything of the kind.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, when lower rates are quoted, we are getting value for our money?

Sir A. Duncan: I hope that in all cases we shall get value for our money.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government contemplate setting up a State-controlled body which shall undertake the exporting and financing of goods for markets abroad?

Sir A. Duncan: Such a step is not at present in contemplation.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect to introduce a really substantial drive in exports without some effective co-ordination such as is indicated in the Question?

Sir A. Duncan: I would suggest that the figures for March and April show that there has been a really substantial drive. We are prepared at all times to consider any expedient which will have the effect of adding to the sum total of our export trade.

Sir Granville Gibson: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether,


in view of the fact that relying upon goods selling themselves on their merits in foreign markets has failed to secure business in competition with the personal salesmanship of other exporting countries, he will state whether it is his intention to press upon the Export Council the importance of securing increased export trade, based upon a bolder policy than in the past, including, if need be, concessions in prices at the expense of the home trade?

Sir A. Duncan: I do not accept the general implication of the first part of the Question. I can assure my hon-Friend that the Export Council are in constant touch with Export Groups in order to concert positive measures for promoting particular exports and that questions of price and representation overseas are prominently kept in mind.

BALANCE OF TRADE.

Mr. David Adams: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the amount by which we shall need to increase our exports in order to make up the probable deficiency in the balance of trade?

Sir A. Duncan: The balance of merchandise trade is published monthly. Information concerning the balance of payments cannot be disclosed.

STOCK COMMODITIES.

Mr. S. O. Davies: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps have been taken to provide a stock of commodities for exports from which orders could be made; and whether any attempt has been made to get firms to work together with this object in view?

Sir A. Duncan: The maintenance of stocks ready to meet export orders is necessary at all times in particular trades, and every possible facility and encouragement is being given, particularly through export groups, to enable such trades to continue this practice.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRICES OF GOODS ACT.

Sir J. Smedley Crooke: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the proved profiteering existing, he will consider the advisability of taking steps to amend the Prices of Goods

Act, giving power to the regional advisory committees to prosecute offenders in suitable cases?

Sir A. Duncan: I cannot accept the implication of my hon. Friend's question. The Prices of Goods Act is working satisfactorily, and it would not be desirable to empower local Price Regulation Committees to institute prosecutions without reference to the Central Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — STEAMSHIP "WABAN" (PURCHASE).

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Shipping whether he can state the reason why the steamship "Waban," recently purchased from the United States of America, is now at Bermuda; what are the nature of the repairs required; what was the price paid per gross ton for the vessel; and if he is satisfied that good value was obtained?

The Minister of Shipping (Mr. Cross): This vessel called at Bermuda to effect certain minor repairs to her boilers and machinery and has since arrived in this country. I am satisfied that good value was obtained in the purchase of the ship, but it would not be in the public interest to disclose the price paid.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the hon. Gentleman say why it was that this ship, which had only recently been purchased in the United States, was detained at Bermuda for three weeks undergoing repairs; and is it desirable to purchase vessels at a high rate such as was paid for this vessel when they are not in a seaworthy condition?

Mr. Cross: I cannot agree that the ship was not in a seaworthy condition or that it was purchased at a high rate. On the contrary, it was a good bargain. The hon. Member asked me why this ship was detained for a period, which he has exaggerated. There should have been no defects in the ship in view of the survey which she had undergone at the hands of the American Bureau of Shipping. Unfortunately, apparently there were certain minor defects which were not detected.

Mr. Shinwell: Surely the hon. Gentleman does not suggest to the House that 50 dollars per gross ton is a satisfactory rate for a vessel of this class?

Mr. Cross: I have already said that I do not think it is in the public interest to state the price paid, but the hon. Member has got it wrong.

Mr. Shinwell: You said that about the Italian ships, you know.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIEN INTERNEES (RATIONS).

Mr. Palmer: asked the Secretary of State for War how the standard of food ration applied to aliens interned in the Isle of Man compares with that in force for the civilian population in this country?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Richard Law): Male internees in the Isle of Man, for the custody of whom the War Office is responsible, are being fed under arrangements made by the Isle of Man Government. Final arrangements have not yet been made, but it is intended that these internees should be fed on a scale comparable with that given to internees in the United Kingdom. This scale includes meat and sugar in quantities corresponding to the ordinary civilian ration. It does not include butter and bacon.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether there is any possibility of these people being asked to pay for their rations when they can afford it?

Mr. Law: I think that is not a matter for the War Department, but I will look into it.

Mr. Palmer: Do I understand from the reply that butter and bacon are not rationed at all?

Mr. Law: No, my hon. Friend misunderstands me. Butter and bacon are not included in the rations, that is to say, they are not available.

Sir J. Lamb: Will the hon. Member see that the question of obtaining payment is given full consideration? There is a great deal of feeling about it in the country.

Mr. Levy: Can my hon. Friend say why the question of payment by these people is not a matter for the War Office, and, if it is not, who is responsible?

Mr. Law: My impression is, as I said, that it is not a matter for the War Office, but I will look into it.

Miss Rathbone: Is it not the case that the majority of the internees are clamouring for the opportunity of working and that such opportunities are still denied?

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY SERVICE.

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.

Sir George Broadbridge: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that conscientious objectors, exempted from military service provided they do work of national importance, are being transferred to the Auxiliary Military Pioneer Corps for training and are wearing their uniform, which is causing unrest amongst the members of the Pioneer Corps, largely composed of ex-servicemen; and what steps he proposes to take to meet this dissatisfaction?

Mr. Law: Conscientious objectors who are exempted from military service do not, of course, come to the Army. As regards those who are registered as liable to be called up for service for non-combatant duties only, I think my hon. Friend is confusing the Auxiliary Military Pioneer Corps with the Non-Combatant Corps. Such men are not posted to the Auxiliary Military Pioneer Corps.

NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN IRISHMEN.

Mr. Liddall: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour whether he is aware of the growing public concern in regard to the large number of able-bodied men of military age from Northern and Southern Ireland who are at present employed in the London area in positions previously occupied by men now serving with His Majesty's Forces; and whether he will state the Government's policy in the matter?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Assheton): Under the terms of a recent Order the transit of persons from Eire or Northern Ireland to Great Britain is completely controlled.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

DEPENDANTS'ALLOWANCES.

Mr. Parker: asked the Secretary of State for War what local authorities in Greater London have approached him and asked for the extra 3s. 6d. a week


given to the families of serving men in the London postal area to be given in their districts also; and whether the Government are prepared to reconsider their decision in this matter?

Mr. Law: I have received representations from two authorities, Brentford and Chiswick, and Barking. As regards the latter part of the Question, I cannot add anything to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave on 21st May last to a similar Question by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher).

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Secretary of State for War whether part of the delay in dealing with applications for war service grants to soldiers' families is due to the pressure of work at the offices of regimental paymasters; and whether he will, take steps to ensure that such applications are dealt with more expeditiously?

Mr. Law: The function of the regimental pay offices in these cases is merely to furnish or to check certain pay particulars for the Ministry of Pensions. I have no reason to think this causes any appreciable delay.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction with the fact that these people are kept waiting, frequently for months, in spite of representations made to the War Office by myself and other hon. Members?

Mr. Law: I am informed that, in the great majority of cases, these matters are dealt with promptly and immediately, by the regimental paymasters. In cases of special difficulty there may be some delay, but I am afraid that such delay is unavoidable.

Mr. Hall: They just ignore letters.

GERMAN PRISONERS OF WAR.

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has considered sending German prisoners and Nazi or fifth column internees to St. Helena, where the Boer prisoners thrived in the Boer war, and where they could largely feed themselves?

Mr. Law: The question of the disposal of prisoners of war and internees is under consideration.

Colonel Wedgwood: Will the Department bear in mind the possibilities of St. Helena?

Mr. Law: Yes, Sir; all possibilities are being considered.

DECORATIONS AND MEDALS.

Mr. Cary: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, on 3rd May, 1918, following the March retreat, powers without limit of immediate award of orders, decorations, and medals, were delegated to the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief on the Western front, provided the standard of award was maintained; and, further, whether he will state the nature of the powers which were conferred upon the Commander-in-Chief of the British Expeditionary Force in France last year, and whether any changes have been made in those powers up to the present time?

Mr. Law: I have not been able to trace the grant of unlimited powers, but I am aware of the general powers of immediate award given to the Commander-in-Chief of the British Expeditionary Force during the last war. Powers of not less extent were conferred upon Lord Gort last year, and remain unaltered.

TANK WARFARE.

Commander Locker-Lampson: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the recent surprises in relation to German tanks, he will improve the Intelligence Branch of the War Office; and whether he will form a committee of Members of Parliament with knowledge of tank warfare to co-operate with the Government?

Mr. Law: I do not accept the implication that my Department was ill-informed or surprised in relation to German tanks. As regards the latter part of the Question my hon. and gallant Friend will be aware of the recent constitution of a Tank Board.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Might not the services be used of the best expert in this House on the subject of tanks—my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter)?

Mr. Shinwell: If the War Office were not surprised about the German tanks, why were they not prepared to meet them?

DIVE-BOMBING (DEFENCE).

Commander Locker-Lampson: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the inability of ground defences to deal adequately with dive-bombing; and whether he will appoint a committee of Members of Parliament acquainted with air fighting in the last war to co-operate with his officials in improving our technique?

Mr. Law: My advisers are fully aware of the problems presented by this form of attack, and are taking steps to develop methods of dealing with it in the light of the latest experience. I am doubtful whether experience confined to air fighting in the last war would be of assistance.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Does my hon. Friend not think that Members of Parliament who fought in the last war and have been fighting in this war might help?

Mr. Law: I certainly think so, and I am sure that any suggestion put forward by Members of Parliament will have the most careful consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

AGRICULTURE (LABOUR).

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is being done to deal with the shortage of skilled workers in the Scottish agricultural industry; and whether any action is to be taken to provide wage-fixing machinery in the industry?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ernest Brown): I would refer my right hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal, on 5th June, on the powers taken by the Government to retain the workers at present engaged in agriculture and to bring back those previously employed in it when they fall out of employment elsewhere. As regards the second part of the Question, machinery for fixing minimum rates of agricultural wages in Scotland already exists, and it will be possible to give effect to the Government's plans for raising the level of agricultural wages within the framework of the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) (Scotland) Act, 1937, as amended by the Bill which is now in its last stages in another place.

Mr. Davidson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there has been a satisfactory influx of agricultural workers to Scottish agriculture during the past three months?

Mr. Brown: I could not say that, because there has been a shortage of skilled workers.

EVACUATION.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the chief reasons for the failure of the Scottish scheme of evacuation have now been fully considered; if so, by whom; and whether he has any statement to make regarding future evacuation?

Mr. E. Brown: The chief reason for the drift back from the receiving areas has no doubt been the absence of air raids. This immunity cannot be relied upon to continue, however, and the evacuation scheme is being kept under constant review by the Government. Plans have been made for the evacuation of additional school children and the Government will put these plans into operation when they consider it necessary to do so.

Mr. Davidson: Was the dissatisfaction aroused by long-distance evacuation considered and, if so, will the Minister consider having another survey, with a view to establishing short-distance evacuation?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member will no doubt realise that the problem is not quite so simple as that. He must know that there are very severe limits upon the powers of reception areas in Scotland.

Mr. Davidson: Will the Minister agree to a fresh survey with regard to short-distance evacuation?

Mr. Brown: All the factors concerned have been, and still are, under review.

Oral Answers to Questions — DOMESTIC COAL SUPPLIES.

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has fixed any limit to the amount of coal which can be purchased during the summer months by any individual domestic consumer?

The Secretary for Mines (Mr. David Grenfell): While the restriction on weekly deliveries of coal to individual consumers has been substantially relaxed, or removed in most areas, the retail coal trade associations have undertaken to secure an equitable distribution of the supplies reaching their areas.

Oral Answers to Questions — PETROL RATIONING.

Mr. Butcher: asked the Secretary for Petroleum what steps he is taking to ensure that petrol now being used for pleasure excursions, shopping expeditions and other non-essential purposes, is either conserved or directed to channels where its use may be of service to the nation, such as the haulage of agricultural produce or other foodstuffs?

The Secretary for Petroleum (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): Adequate supplies of petrol are made available for all necessary road transport of essential commodities. These services are not prejudiced by the allotment of the strictly limited quantity of petrol for domestic purposes. I have recently issued a new Petroleum Order, with the object of checking abuses and promoting further economy in consumption.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCRAP IRON (RAILWAYS)

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that large quantities of old iron are lying in railway yards and sidings throughout the country; and will he instruct the railway companies to have it collected for the national salvage campaign?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Montague): Throughout the country, the railway companies are actively engaged in the salvage of waste and scrap material of all kinds, and its systematic collection and disposal. If my hon. Friend is aware of any particular stocks of old iron, and will inform me of the stations or yards where they are situated, I shall be happy to have the matter looked into.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

MILK (GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS).

Mr. Price: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what steps he contemplates taking to secure that milk shall be offered at special rates to families with small incomes, in order to sustain the national effort in war time?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Boothby): Perhaps the hon. Member would be good enough to await the statement I hope, with permission, to make at the end of Questions.

Later:

Mr. Boothby: The Government fully recognises the paramount importance of milk in the diet of the people of this country and regards it as essential to maintain milk production at a level which will ensure a continuance of adequate supplies for those who need it most.
The cost of producing milk, like the cost of producing other foods, has increased under war conditions. To meet these increased costs the producer was guaranteed a price for every gallon of milk sold during the summer months, which substantially exceeds the price he received a year ago. The costs of distribution have also risen since the outbreak of war, but, in spite of these two factors, the consumer to-day, after nine months of war, is paying the same price for milk as he paid in June of last year.
The disparity between revenue and costs was reduced by a Government subsidy during the first three months of this year, and more lately by increasing the price of milk used in manufacture. This expedient, however, will not produce sufficient revenue to bridge the gap which already exists, and my Noble Friend has been forced to find another solution.
The Ministry of Food has recently completed a detailed investigation into the costs of distributing milk, and my Noble Friend is satisfied that these costs have increased since the outbreak of war. The milk distributors have, therefore, been informed that an increased margin will be allowed for the period up to the 30th September next. In the interval, my Noble Friend is arranging for an exhaustive inquiry into the present system of distribution, with a view to bringing about a substantial reduction in the cost.
Pending the result of the inquiry my Noble Friend decided that there was no alternative but to increase the retail price of milk by 4d. per gallon from 1st July next, but he was not prepared to do this until he had made satisfactory arrangements to avoid hardship to those members of the community, namely, expectant and nursing mothers and young children, to whom milk is an indispensable food. A comprehensive national scheme is now in course of preparation which it is hoped to bring into operation on 1st July, or on the earliest possible date thereafter, under which one pint of milk will be available


daily at the much reduced price of 2d. per pint for the expectant or nursing mother and to children under school age in every household which desires to take advantage of the scheme.
The scheme will also make provision for the supply of milk free of charge to those households which cannot afford to buy it. For this purpose, a simple criterion of need will be necessary in order to prevent abuse, but there is no intention of instituting a detailed inquiry in the form of a "means test" as that term is commonly understood. The scheme will be administered under the central authority of the Ministry of Food through local officers. The details of the machinery are now being worked out in consultation with the Departments concerned, and with the milk retailers who have agreed to distribute all milk under the scheme at a reduced charge.
The scheme will take the place of the arrangements in force in certain areas under the scheme put forward by the Ministry of Health shortly before the outbreak of war, but will in no way affect the milk-in-schools scheme, which the Government hopes will now be more universally adopted and taken advantage of by a higher proportion of parents for the benefit of their children. The scheme will not affect the power of a local authority to supply an additional quantity of milk under its own arrangements to any person, on the advice of the medical officer of health.
My Noble Friend is certain that the cheap milk scheme will commend itself generally, and that he may rely upon the co-operation of all those engaged in this great national industry in making it a success for the real and lasting benefit of the people of this country.

Mr. Garro Jones: By whom will the proposed inquiry into the cost of milk distribution be conducted? Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that this inquiry will not be as tender towards milk distributors as former inquiries into their operations have been?

Mr. Boothby: The inquiry will be conducted by the Ministry of Food. I do not think it will be unduly tender.

Mr. Garro Jones: The Ministry of Food is a very nebulous body. Can the hon. Gentleman give us any further details?

Mr. Boothby: I thank the hon. Gentleman for describing me as a nebulous body. I can assure him that he may repose absolute confidence in myself.

Mr. John Morgan: Who is to share the 4d. increase and what proportion of the 4d. is to be divided up—[Interruption.]

Colonel Sir Edward Ruggles-Brise: May I ask my hon. Friend how the extra 4d. is to be divided, to meet the extra cost of production on the one hand and of distribution on the other?

Mr. Boothby: The price to be paid to the producer is a separate matter altogether and is now being considered with the Agricultural Department. A statement on this point will be made in due course.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: When will the hon. Gentleman adopt a policy whereby people are in receipt of a satisfactory wage so that they may be able to provide milk for themselves?

Mr. Morgan: In the event of the milk supply falling in quantity will the first charge on that supply be the cheap milk scheme?

Mr. Boothby: I think that would be the case, but I would like to look into it. The point will be borne in mind. It is not at present anticipated that there will be a serious fall in the milk supply.

Mr. Morgan: But it is falling.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: Has the hon. Gentleman any plans to make cheap milk also clean milk and prohibit the sale of infected milk in this country?

Mr. Boothby: That scarcely arises out of the Question.

Mr. McGovern: The Minister has stated that there will be a simple test regarding cheap milk at 2d. a pint; can he tell us the test?

Mr. Boothby: Final details have not been settled.

Mr. Davidson: Will the opinion of school teachers be taken into consideration?

HOME-KILLED MEAT.

Mr. Cluse: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether London is being treated differently to other parts of the country in regard to.


the supplies of home-killed beef and lamb; and whether arrangements could be made to ensure that the three slaughter-houses operated by the Ministry of Food in London could have larger supplies of bullocks and lambs for killing, in order that the London consumers may have a similar supply to that of other parts of the country?

Mr. Boothby: London has always consumed a much lower proportion of home-killed meat in relation to total supplies than the rest of the country. The allocation of such meat in London under the control scheme has been slightly higher, relative to total consumption, than in peace time. As regards the last part of the Question, I am not prepared to increase the allocation of livestock to London slaughterhouses so as to raise the proportion of fresh meat in London to the figure for the rest of the country.

FLOUR (MILLING METHODS).

Sir Ernest Graham-Little: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he has considered a new process of milling, details of which have been sent to him, which claims to have the effect of improving the nutritive value of the flour so prepared and of reducing the volume of shipping required for the importation of wheat; and whether he will institute an immediate inquiry into these claims?

Mr. Boothby: The matter is under consideration, and I will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.

DATES.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food why the price of unpitted bulk dates to the trade was advanced, on 27th May, from 21s. per cwt. to 25s., seeing that these dates have been held by the Ministry for many months; and that the increased price will make it more difficult for poorer people to buy them?

Mr. Boothby: Owing to the late arrival of the date shipments, a large stock of dates was left on the Ministry's hands after the Christmas trading was finished. In order to clear this stock, the price was reduced to the lowest possible level, with the result that by the end of May very small quantities of dates remained. The price was then advanced from 21s. per

cwt. to 25s. per cwt. in order to cover the various costs incurred by carrying large stocks of dates beyond the normal period.

Mr. Lipson: What steps were taken by my hon. Friend's Ministry to prevent dates which were sold to the trade at 21s. being passed on to the public on the basis of 25s.?

Mr. Boothby: I would like to look into that question, but I would remind my hon. Friend that the difference is less than ½d. per pound on the retail price.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

DETAINED AND INTERNED PERSONS.

Sir G. Broadbridge: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is intended to publish regularly the names of all persons, irrespective of their position, who are for the purposes of home security, detained or interned?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): There is, of course, no desire to conceal the identity of individuals because they are persons of position. Indeed if a person detained is in any way prominent or notorious, this fact ensures that some publicity will be given to his case. But there would, I think, be no advantage in publishing the names of all those detained under Defence Regulation 18B. Amongst them are persons of hostile origin or association whose cases may be very similar to those of persons of enemy nationality who have been interned under the Prerogative, and it would be impracticable to publish the names of the 10,000 persons interned as enemy aliens.

Captain Sir William Brass: Why would it be impossible to publish 10,000 names? Would it not be as well to let the public know who these people are, because they may have some friends associated with them and the result might be that they should also be interned?

Mr. Peake: Of course, persons can communicate with their friends, so that there is no question of anybody being detained without other persons being aware of the circumstances. As for publishing the names of all the internees, waste of paper is a consideration at the present time and it would involve considerable expenditure.

Sir W. Brass: My hon. Friend has missed my point. The point is that if these names are published the friends of these people will be known and it is possible that some others will have to be interned as well.

Mr. Peake: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the friends of these persons are, of course, known to the authorities.

Sir W. Brass: But are they?

Colonel Nathan: If publication is made, can steps be taken to differentiate between those who are detained under Defence Regulation 18B and those who are interned under the Prerogative? The difference is vital.

Mr. Peake: The differentiation is not so easy to draw, because we have interned under Regulation 18B many people who are of hostile origin or association, but happened to possess either British or neutral nationality.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Are their letters censored?

Mr. Peake: Yes, certainly.

Sir J. Lamb: Where a man can afford to pay for his maintenance will he be made to do so? There is a strong feeling in the country that he should do so.

Mr. Peake: I do not think that arises on this Question.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Are visits censored?

Mr. Peake: So far as 18B cases are concerned, that certainly is the rule.

Mr. A. Reed: Is it possible for a Member to find out who has been detained in his constituency?

Mr. Peake: I expect a Member would hear about that in the ordinary course.

ALIENS.

Sir Patrick Hannon: asked the Home Secretary whether constant, supervision is being maintained on the arrival and departure of trains at London termini for the prevention of aliens and undesirable persons travelling with members of His Majesty's Forces to and from the provinces?

Mr. Peake: A watch is kept for individuals who are under suspicion, but it would not be practicable to prevent aliens,

including persons of French nationality and others who are assisting this country, from travelling in the same trains as members of His Majesty's Forces. The steps taken by the police to deal with suspected persons do not, of course, lessen the need for the greatest discretion in conversation by all travellers.

Sir P. Hannon: Would my hon. Friend assure the House that every provision possible is exercised in regard to people travelling by train?

Mr. Peake: I can assure my hon. Friend that every possible step is taken in that direction, but it would obviously not be in the public interest to give details of measures taken in the interests of public security.

Mr. Thorne: What does the hon. Gentleman intend to do in cases where men are dressed in women's clothes?

Sir P. Hannon: asked the Home Secretary whether he is satisfied that every necessary measure has been taken to prevent the employment of aliens in all works of national importance unless he has been assured of the loyalty of such persons to the interests of this country?

Mr. Peake: Special measures for controlling the employment of aliens in work such as my hon. Friend has in mind have been in operation since November last when an order was made providing that no alien shall be employed in a number of scheduled occupations unless he obtains a permit for this purpose. Permits are granted on my right hon. Friend's behalf by the Auxiliary War Services Department which makes careful inquiries and only grants permits to aliens about whose reliability no doubt is felt.

Sir P. Hannon: Could my hon. Friend say whether from time to time any check is exercised on the permits issued?

Mr. Peake: A very careful check indeed is exercised continuously.

REFUGEES.

Sir P. Hannon: asked the Home Secretary whether he is satisfied that rigid examination of the character and antecedents of refugees from continental countries has been conducted by the immigration officers at the ports where such people have been received; and whether


supervision is being maintained over all such refugees in their disposition throughout this country?

Mr. Peake: Yes, Sir. War refugees from countries invaded by the enemy are subjected to a close examination at the ports and at the reception centres. As regards the second part of the Question, my right hon. Friend made an order on 21st May imposing on all such alien refugees restrictions on their freedom of movement and on the possession or use of certain articles such as cameras, motor-cars, etc. They are also required to complete a detailed questionnaire about themselves, and appropriate action is taken in respect of any individual about whose reliability there is any doubt.

Sir P. Hannon: Is consultation taking place from time to time with the Embassies of the countries from which these people may come, in order to satisfy the Home Office that they are all right?

Mr. Peake: Yes, Sir. There is a liaison of that kind, but we put our principal regard upon the inquiries which we ourselves undertake.

Mr. Garro Jones: Can the Hon. Gentleman assure the House that a constant track is maintained on all these refugees, and can he say that the whereabouts of all of them are now known to the police?

Mr. Peake: Most certainly. They have to register their new addresses and they are subjected to exactly the same restrictions as those to which enemy aliens are subjected.

Mr. Mathers: Is it possible for such refugees as can be vouched for to find employment in the freedom which is given to them?

Mr. Peake: They are free and they are instructed in suitable cases to register themselves for employment at Employment Exchanges.

Mr. Lipson: Has it ever been found, as a result of the inquiries into who these war refugees are, that an enemy agent has been trying to get through?

Mr. Peake: I do not think it would be in the public interest to give that information, but I can tell my hon. Friend that quite a considerable number of these refugees have been put into internment.

AIR-RAID SHELTERS.

Mr. Quibell: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that seven railway wagons have stood in the sidings at Scunthorpe and Frodingham, one of them since December, 1939, and the remaining six since early in January, awaiting his instructions as to what has to be done with the contents, which are a few parts of air-raid shelters; and will he deal with this matter at an early date?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Mr. Mabane): The air-raid shelter material to which my hon. Friend refers is part of the surplus that remained with the railway company after the main delivery in Scunthorpe was completed in February last. The surplus was due to the fact that a large number of householders refused to accept shelters which they had originally applied for. As further requirements in this district were expected, the removal of the material was postponed. The local authority has now requested further deliveries to householders, and the small remainder is being transferred elsewhere.

Mr. Quibell: Is the hon. Member aware that since this Question was put down, the original tickets, dated last December, have been removed from these wagons, and undated tickets have been put there to replace them; and will the hon. Member make inquiries at Wombwell, Doncaster, Chapeltown, Barnsley, and other places, where this scandal is as great as it is at Scunthorpe?

Mr. Mabane: I will make inquiries into the matter.

Mr. Mathers: Who pays demurrage on these wagons; and why was the material allowed to remain in the trucks, instead of being unloaded on to the ground?

Mr. Mabane: In this case the householders applied for shelters and the shelters were delivered. On their arrival, the householders changed their minds, and 624 people in the Scunthorpe area refused to accept the shelters. There had to be some delay before the shelters could be sent elsewhere.

Mr. Mathers: In the first part of my Supplementary Question I asked who was paying the demurrage on these wagons?

Mr. Mabane: Perhaps the hon. Member will give notice of that Question.

Mr. T. Smith: Is the hon. Member aware that, while these wagons were standing in the sidings, here and in other places, they were wanted by the coal trade, and complaints were being made in this House about shortage of wagons? Will he have inquiries made as to why these wagons should now be standing in sidings in South Yorkshire?

Mr. Quibell: What is now being done with the air-raid shelters? They have now been unloaded; I went to have a look at them.

Mr. Mabane: The householders refused to accept them; but now they have apparently changed their minds and have asked for them. The shelters have been re-delivered; but a surplus of 30 remains, and they are being sent to another destination.

Mr. Quibell: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this subject in the House at the first opportunity. The facts have not been stated.

Mr. Butcher: asked the Home Secretary whether he proposes to vary the schedule of areas where employers are obliged to provide shelter for their employés?

Mr. Mabane: No general variation of the character suggested by my hon. Friend is proposed. If he has any particular areas in mind, I shall be glad if he will communicate with me.

EVACUATION (TYNESIDE).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Health whether he will schedule for compulsory evacuation districts in which representative bodies of people demand this in the hope of saving their children from bombing; and whether he is aware that large Labour party organisations on Tyneside have unanimously passed resolutions demanding compulsory evacuation for that area?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave him on 30th May on the question of compulsory evacuation. I have seen a copy of a resolution passed by the Executive Committee of the Newcastle City Labour Party, but the registration figures for Tyneside do not indicate that the parents

would be likely to co-operate in a compulsory scheme.

Mr. Adams: Are we to understand that the Minister will accept responsibility for the destruction of any school children?

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Mr. Adams: On a point of Order. May I not put this Supplementary—

Mr. Speaker: I have called the next Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — EVACUATION FROM DUNKIRK (MEDAL).

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider awarding a special British medal to all men and women who went to the assistance of Belgium by land, air and sea and who also took part in the Dunkirk evacuation; and, if so, whether the medal will be presented to British, French and Belgian allied men?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): The question of instituting a British medal for war service will be considered in due course. Awards of decorations and medals for gallantry and for good service are already made from time to time and special services rendered since the invasion of Belgium will be dealt with in accordance with the usual practice.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Will the Government see that this time the decorations always go to the men who have done the fighting, and not to those behind the lines?

Mr. Attlee: I will bear my hon. Friend's point in mind.

Mr. Loftus: Would my right hon. Friend consider allowing the small ships concerned to fly a special flag in commemoration of their action?

Mr. Attlee: I will consider that suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — MUNITIONS PRODUCTION CONTROL.

Mr. Liddall: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that an amalgamation of the Ministry of Supply, the Department responsible for Aircraft Production and the labour-supplying department of the Ministry of Labour, would


reduce the clog upon munitions production now caused by these three controls operating separately; and whether he will take the necessary action to do away with this hindrance to production?

Mr. Attlee: As at present advised, I am not satisfied that production is impeded by the existing allocation of functions between the Departments named or that it would be accelerated by the amalgamation suggested.

Oral Answers to Questions — CABINET COMMITTEES (COMPOSITION).

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister (1) whether he will state the full composition of the Production Council, the Economic Policy Committee, the Food Policy Committee, the Home Policy Committee and the Civil Defence Committee;
(2) whether the Minister of Supply attends meetings of the Defence Committee;
(3) whether he will state the names of the members of the committee presided over by the Lord President of the Council, in addition to the Lord Privy Seal, the Minister without Portfolio and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and charged with concerting and directing the work of the Production Council, Economic Policy Committee, Food Policy Committee, Home Policy Committee and Civil Defence Committee; and how often it meets weekly?

Mr. Attlee: It is contrary to the usual practice to publish details of the composition, procedure, etc., of Cabinet and War Cabinet Committee, and I am not prepared to make an exception in the case of the Committees mentioned in these Questions, except to the extent of saying that the Minister of Supply attends meetings of the Defence Committee when circumstances so require, and that the Committee presided over by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council meets from time to time as the occasion arises.

Mr. Mander: Would my right hon. Friend be good enough to make this point clear—I think it is intended—that the names mentioned in the Question are really the whole composition of the Committee over which the Lord President of the Council presides?

Mr. Attlee: If the hon. Member will look at the previous answer that I gave him, he will see very clearly the composition of the Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE MINISTERS (DESIGNATION).

Mr. Hely-Hutchinson: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the conduct of war embraces all three Services, he will consider changing the title of the Secretary of State for War to that of Secretary of State for the Army?

Mr. Attlee: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend's title is, I think, well understood, and gives rise to no misunderstanding. Such a change would, moreover, involve legislation.

Mr. Hely-Hutchinson: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider changing his title of Minister of Defence to that of Minister for War or some alternative title which more fully reflects our will to victory?

Mr. Attlee: I do not think it is necessary to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion in order further to demonstrate this country's will to victory.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (WAR SERVICE).

Commander Locker-Lampson: asked the Prime Minister whether he can now make any statement on the employment of Members of Parliament on suitable war service?

Mr. Attlee: I have now given further consideration to this matter. As I have told the House, His Majesty's Government are anxious that hon. Members who are desirous of assisting the national effort in their spare time should be given every opportunity for so doing. As the House will be aware, many Members are serving in His Majesty's Forces, and others are doing work of national importance in various ways. I might, as an example, refer to the work of the Select Committee on National Expenditure, which is composed of 32 Members. In addition to this, it must be remembered that there are opportunities for hon. Members to do service of the greatest value in their own constituencies and


localities, particularly in connection with matters of Home Defence and National Savings. This kind of work is already being done, and I would like to emphasise its importance in the national interest.
The practical difficulties of utilising the services of every Member who is anxious to give his services in addition to his public duties as a Member of this House will, I am sure, be appreciated, but the Government will gladly avail themselves of hon. Members' services as far as possible.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many Members of this House are gravely perturbed when they read about the tremendous effort which is being made in our factories and shipyards and in other places, and feel that we are not, perhaps, pulling our full weight?

Oral Answers to Questions — MONEY RATES.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the necessity to finance the present war with the utmost economy and of the beneficial results to His Majesty's Treasury of the previous reductions of Bank Rate, he will take immediate action for the reduction of Bank Rate from 2 per cent. to 1 per cent.; and for the comparative reduction of rates of interest on Treasury bills and other forms of Government borrowing?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): It would clearly not be proper for me to forecast the future course of Bank Rate. While I am in agreement with my hon. Friend as to the importance of the considerations to which he refers, they are not the only relevant considerations.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in 1936 and 1937 the Bank Rate was 2 per cent., and the Treasury bill rate 10s. per cent.? What is the justification for the Treasury bill rate now being over £1 per cent., which is 100 per cent. increase? My right hon. Friend has the control of money rates; why does he not exercise it?

Sir K. Wood: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put another Question down, and I will endeavour to answer it.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES (DUTY-FREE CIGARETTES).

Mr. Banfield: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether arrangements will be made for wounded men of the British Expeditionary Force, in hospital in this country, to be supplied with cigarettes duty free, in view of the small allowance that the men receive whilst in hospital?

Sir K. Wood: Arrangements already exist whereby certain approved organisations are allowed to receive duty-free gifts of tobacco from abroad for distribution to sick and wounded members of the Forces in accredited hospitals, and are, in addition, allowed to purchase tobacco out of bond or on drawback in this country out of their own funds for similar distribution. Certain suggestions made in last week's Debate on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill are at present receiving my consideration, although, as I have pointed out, there are considerable difficulties.

Captain Bellenger: Surely there are enough voluntary organisations, philanthropic organisations, to supply these men with cigarettes, without any official action of this kind?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir; that is the view expressed in the first part of my answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — EXCESS PROFITS TAX.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the imposition of the 100 per cent. Excess Profits Tax will be applied to Members of Parliament whose income is increased on appointment to Government and other posts?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir.

Mr. Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why?

Sir K. Wood: Because being an M.P. is not a "trade or business" within the meaning of the Act.

Mr. Davies: If these increases of income are not the profits of industry, can we regard them as being the rewards of indolence?

Sir K. Wood: Not in the case of the hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR SAVINGS.

Mr. Marcus Samuel: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to encourage savings, he will consider the advisability of excluding all such sums of earned income as may be invested in war savings from the operation of Income Tax up to the amount of £500 per head?

Sir K. Wood: I am afraid that I could not entertain this suggestion. I may remind my hon. Friend that the earned income allowance exempts from Income Tax one-sixth of the earned income, up to a maximum allowance of £250.

Mr. Parker: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether arrangements will be made to allow depositors, who so wish during the war, to deposit their savings in the Post Office Savings Bank free of interest charge?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): Depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank who wish to surrender the interest on their deposits to the Exchequer for the duration of the war need only notify their wishes to the Controller of the Bank, who will make the necessary arrangements to give effect to them. I should like to take this opportunity of saying how much I appreciate the patriotism of the considerable number of depositors who have already done so.

Sir Irving Albery: Is there any limit to the amount which can be deposited in this way?

Captain Crookshank: There is, under the present regulations, an annual limit upon what may be put into the Post Office Savings Bank.

Sir I. Albery: Would it not be desirable to remove that limit in the case of deposits carried over?

Captain Crookshank: That is another question. If my hon. Friend will put it down, I will give it consideration, and answer it.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: asked the Home Secretary whether he can now state the decision of the Government regarding the amendment of the law relating to workmen's compensation?

Mr. Peake: I cannot make any further statement on this subject at present.

Mr. Macdonald: In view of the distress which is being caused to workmen by this long delay, will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that a statement will be made at the earliest opportunity?

Mr. Peake: I am aware of the desirability of a statement being made at the earliest moment; but the hon. Member will be aware that there was some tension in the House when the Bill received its Second Reading, under the previous Government. I think that we had better have a word about it in private.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

CONTROL OF PAPER ORDER.

Sir J. Smedley Crooke: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that some firms in the fur trade, not trading in their own names, are still breaking the Control of Paper Order (No. 16), dated the 25th May, by sending by post in great numbers illustrated catalogues in book form, thereby not only defeating the effort to control paper but tempting potential buyers to invest money in furs which might otherwise be invested in Defence Bonds or War Certificates; and will he take steps to stop this practice?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Harold Macmillan): If my hon. Friend will give me particulars of the firms and circulars to which he refers, I will have the cases investigated. I would remind him, however, that the Control of Paper (No. 16) Order permits the distribution of advertising circulars printed before 27th May if they do not exceed the weight of those distributed in the corresponding three months of last year. Circulars printed after 27th May only be distributed up to one-third of that weight.

TANK PRODUCTION.

Mr. Watkins: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Supply whether he has considered the arrangements in the Ministry for the production of tanks?

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes, Sir. On the 29th May I announced that, in consultation with my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War, I had decided to constitute


a Tank Board to consider the whole situation regarding the production and design of tanks and to advise me as to the action required. The board was to be composed of independent members and of members representing the War Office and the Ministry of Supply. We thought it advisable that, before the full board was constituted, the independent chairman and independent members should review the existing position as rapidly as possible. They have done so and both I and my right hon. Friend are deeply indebted to them.
They have, in addition to suggestions as to various matters of less importance, made two major suggestions, first, that, in order to secure quick production in these times, control of the organisation of the Tank Department in the Ministry of Supply must be in the hands of civilians now engaged in rapid commercial production methods, and, second, that the Army must state its demands unequivocally through one focal point, and that there should be, therefore, appointed in the War Office, a General Officer of high rank and recent fighting experience with tanks, to perform that function. My right hon. Friend and myself are agreed in principle that these suggestions should be adopted and they will be carried out as expeditiously as they can, always having regard to the fundamental necessity of expanding current production to the utmost.

Mr. Hammersley: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two Questions? First, has the Director-General of Tank Production agreed with this report of the Tank Board; and, secondly, if he has, is the House to understand that the Director-General of Tank Production, who for so many months has protected and defended the delinquencies of officers with whom he has been working, has now decided that it is right and proper that they should go and that he should remain?

Mr. Morrison: On the first point, it is for the Minister to decide whether the report should be adopted or not. It is the responsibility of the Minister and not of officers of a State Department. Secondly, I think it is perhaps quite wrong that individual attacks upon officers of a State Department should be made across the Floor of the House, and I think it would be wrong for me to

debate the qualities of officers of a Department.

Mr. Hammersley: Arising out of that answer, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter at the earliest possible opportunity.

Sir Joseph Nall: May I ask whether the civilians who will now be engaged on this work will be men who are conversant with this type of heavy industry and not persons drawn from other industries?

Mr. Morrison: That is certainly a material consideration which I will bear in mind.

Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: May I ask whether we are working with the French Government in the design of tanks? Do we consult their experts before we.get our designs out so that we get the very latest types?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. and gallant Member will appreciate that the existing designs were made some time ago and we must not interrupt the output. We must get the best we can in the circumstances. The hon. and gallant Member will be glad to know that there is close collaboration between the Ministry of Supply and the Ministry of Armaments in France, but we must be a little careful in this matter. You may get so much consultation that you do not get on with the job.

Mr. Woodburn: In connection with the present production of tanks, is the right hon. Gentleman looking into the question of the complaints that railway workshops and railway engineering shops are not made sufficient use of in the present production programme?

Mr. Morrison: That matter is being investigated.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURAL WORKERS (UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT).

Mr. George Griffiths: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour whether he will make a statement regarding the agricultural workers unemployment fund and consider raising the maximum amount of benefit from 35s. to the same as the other unemployment fund or merging them both into one?

Mr. Assheton: I am not at present in a position to make a statement on this subject.

Mr. Griffiths: Will the Minister be in a position to make a statement in the immediate future seeing that such a change is being made in the farm labourers' wages?

Mr. Assheton: My right hon. Friend has had a great many things to consider in the last month, and this is one of the matters which he has not had time to consider fully.

Mr. J. Morgan: Does he intend to go into the matter fully?

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. Gardner: asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the fact that many wives of men serving in the Armed Forces have great difficulty in meeting civil liabilities and are unaware of the existing machinery available for obtaining special war service grants in cases of hardship, he will take some early opportunity to make known to the Forces the existence of this special war service grants machinery?

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will arrange to make it more generally known to men called up for service that they may apply for special grants if they have heavy commitments not capable of being met by their service pay; and if the methods for securing these grants may be made clear to men before enlistment?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions (Miss Wilkinson): I do not think that any difficulty arises in the case of men now joining the Armed Forces, as Recruiting Officers are required to bring the War Service Grants Scheme to the knowledge of voluntary recruits and men called up are given the opportunity of applying for a grant at the time of medical examination. Every effort has been made by broadcast and Press announcements, by notices in all Post Offices, and by the supply of information through offices of the Assistance Board, to make the special grants scheme known to persons who may be eligible for grants in respect of men already in the Forces. My hon. Friend is considering the possibility of still further steps to this end.

Colonel Nathan: Is the hon. Lady aware that the welfare organisation of the Army which is always available for this purpose is much used, and can she say whether the attention of troops has been drawn to that fact?

Miss Wilkinson: We are well aware of the excellent work which is being done by the welfare organisation of the Army, and if I may say so, Members of Parliament might be able to help in this matter in regard to their own constituents.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Cannot the man be supplied with a document on enlistment showing that to which he is entitled?

Miss Wilkinson: When a man is called up for medical examination he is supplied with a pink form upon which he has to make an application and on which the particulars are given, and he can see the welfare officer if he is in any doubt.

Mr. W. H. Green: asked the Minister of Pensions in how many cases of applications for special war grants have more than six weeks and eight weeks, respectively, elapsed since the date of application and the determination of the claim?

Miss Wilkinson: I regret that the records of the Ministry do not enable me to furnish the information asked for, but I can assure the hon. Member that cases are dealt with as expeditiously as possible.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Are there so many of them that they cannot be counted?

Miss Wilkinson: We have very accurate records of actual applications but owing to the fact that more than half of our staff are in the North, it is not possible to get quite the actual information that we could get if they were all in London, but I am glad to say that generally the excess of these totals over intake is now more than 900 cases.

Mr. Hall: Will the hon. Lady remember that people are awaiting decisions and that they want the money?

Miss Wilkinson: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that matter is constantly in the thoughts of my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.

EMPIRE NEWS (CENSORSHIP).

Sir Richard Acland: asked the Minister of Information why there was


inserted in the 21st May issue of the Ministry's publication. Empire Press Notes, a strong anti-Russian article; and whether he will take steps to dismiss from the service of the Ministry the individual or individuals who were responsible?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Mr. Harold Nicolson): My right hon. Friend cannot accept the hon. Baronet's description of the article in question, which is mainly concerned with the oppression of the Poles under German rule, but deals also in certain paragraphs with conditions in Soviet-occupied territory. It is, of course, contrary to the policy of His Majesty's Government to initiate publicity hostile to neutral states, and my right hon. Friend would prefer that the paragraphs in question had been worded otherwise. My right hon. Friend has given instructions which should prevent any similar happening in future. The answer to the last part of the Question is in the negative.

Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: Is there any reason why the attitude of any Minister should be pro-Russian at the present time?

Sir R. Acland: asked the Minister of Information upon what principles there was cut from the 23rd May issue of the bulletin issued to many Empire newspapers by General News Services, London, a long extract from a recent speech by Mr. Jack Tanner; and whether he will take steps to dismiss from the service of the censorship department the individual or individuals responsible for making this cut?

Mr. Nicolson: Certain passages from a speech by Mr. Jack Tanner were inserted in the General News Service issue of the 30th May. They appeared to have been inserted in their context by the editor of the service for the sole purpose of casting disrepute upon the war effort of this country, and were cut accordingly. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the negative.

Sir R. Acland: Surely there must be some principles on which you can cut out of a verbatim report facts which can not be of any military value to the enemy? What are these principles, other than of military value, on which things can be cut?

Mr. Nicolson: The censorship of matter transmitted by mail abroad is exercised by virtue of warrants granted by the Crown which authorise the censorship of postal material. The principles on which censorship is exercised in such matters are settled by administrative decision, which, in the case of Press matter, is taken by my right hon. Friend.

Sir R. Acland: Are these principles published and available to us in any way? [Interruption.] I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on some future occasion.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS (PRICES).

Sir Adrian Baillie: asked the Minister of Agriculture (1) whether his scheme for fixing new prices of agricultural products to meet the increased charges on farming will include fruit and vegetables;
(2) whether he will now state the names of the agricultural products on which his Ministry is working out the actual new prices which are to take account of additional farming costs; whether any of these prices have been definitely fixed; and, if not, when he expects to be able to make a statement on the subject to enable farmers and stockbreeders to plan ahead?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. T. Williams): My right hon. Friend fully realises that farmers and stockbreeders are anxious to have the earliest possible information with regard to the adjustments in prices which the Government have undertaken to make in order to take account of the additional costs which have to be faced. The matter is receiving urgent attention and my right hon. Friend hopes to be in a position to make a statement at an early date. I would ask my hon. Friend to allow any indication of the products to be covered to be deferred until my right hon. Friend is able to make the general statement to which I have referred.

Sir A. Baillie: Can my hon. Friend give any specific information in regard to Question No. 71?

Mr. Williams: I hope that my hon. Friend will await the statement which is to be made by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: What is to be the basis upon which these prices are to be


fixed, because conditions vary from farm to farm?

Mr. Williams: That is a highly complex problem with which my right hon. Friend is at the moment dealing.

Sir J. Lamb: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say when these fixed prices will be issued, and will it be before the actual Order comes into operation or not?

Mr. Williams: As soon as my right hon. Friend has made up his mind, a statement will be made by him.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the farmer cannot pay the increased wages until he gets the higher prices for his produce?

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (OUTSTANDING LOANS).

Mr. Thorne: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how

Dawes Loan.
Outstanding 1931.
Outstanding (latest available figures).


Issued in:


United Kingdom and Continent
£18,605,500
£16,553,900


United States
…
…
…
$78,172,900
$59,633,400


Italy
…
…
…
…
Lire 85,763,500
Lire 77,548,500


Sweden
…
…
…
…
Sw. Kr. 21,753,000
Sw. Kr. 19,879,000


Switzerland
…
…
…
Sw. Fcs. 12,914,000
Sw. Fcs. 11,545,000




Young Loan.
Outstanding 1931.
Outstanding (latest available figures).


Issued in:


United Kingdom
…
…
£11,710,400
£11,174,300


United States
…
…
…
$96,071,000
$91,305,600


Belgium
…
…
…
…
Bgs. 34,163,300
Bgs. 32,636,400


France
…
…
…
…
Fr. Fcs. 2,463,379,000
Fr. Fcs. 2,368,969,000


Germany
…
…
…
…
RM. 35,244,100
RM. 34,104,200


Holland
…
…
…
…
Fl. 71,163,000
Fl. 67,617,400


Italy
…
…
…
…
Lire 107,646,000
Lire 103,903,000


Sweden
…
…
…
…
Sw. Kr. 107,554,000
Sw. Kr. 102,486,000


Switzerland
…
…
…
Sw. Fcs. 89,842,000
Sw. Fcs. 85,826,000

Oral Answers to Questions — MEXICO (PETROLEUM).

Mr. Thorne: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information from our representative in Mexico, as to whether the trouble between the Royal Dutch Shell oil group and the Mexican Government has been settled?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): The dispute between the Mexican Government and the

much of the principal and interest of the £100,000,000 loan to Germany by this and other countries has been paid since 1931 and the amount now owing?

Mr. Butler: I assume that the hon. Member has in mind the Dawes and the Young Loans to Germany. I am circulating in the Official Report a statement of the amounts of each of these loans outstanding in 1931 and at the latest available date.
Interest was paid in full until 1938 on the bonds of both loans certified as being in British ownership. The interest rates on bonds in British ownership were reduced by agreement in the summer of 1938 to 5 per cent. on the Dawes and 4½ per cent. on the Young Loans, and payments at these rates were continued until the outbreak of war.

Following is the statement:

Mexican Eagle Petroleum Company arising out of the expropriation of that Company's properties has not yet been settled.

Mr. Thorne: What is standing in the way? Why do not you get this job settled now?

Mr. Butler: Our relations with Mexico are fully appreciated by His Majesty's Government, but this dispute raises rather more complicated questions.

Mr. Thorne: Is the Minister aware that it is necessary to have diplomatic relations, and why does he not restore them as quickly as possible?

Mr. Butler: I answered that question in the first part of my answer just now.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOLD COAST (LIQUOR IMPORTATION).

Mr. Lipson: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the concern felt by the repeal of the Ordinance of 1930, which was designed to secure the prohibition of the importation of gin to the Gold Coast; and will he reconsider reimposing the prohibition?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. George Hall): Yes, Sir. My Noble Friend and his predecessor have received representations on this subject. A reduction of the import quota for 1941 is now under consideration by the Governor. As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which was given to the hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mr. Barr) on 21st February, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. Lipson: Is my hon. Friend not aware that this prohibition was in the best interests of the native population and was imposed at the request of the paramount chief, and will he reconsider the question with a view to imposing the prohibition once more?

Mr. Hall: My hon. Friend will see the replies to that Supplementary in the answer I have referred to, that is, 21st February.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR MEMORIAL (MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT AND OFFICIALS).

Captain Plugge: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he will agree to the display in the Library of a Memorial Board, giving the names of Members and officials of this House who lose their lives in the war, adding in each case details of the circumstances?

Mr. Mabane: My Noble Friend is in consultation with the authorities of the House in regard to this suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED ASSOCIATIONS OF GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE.

Mr. J. Morgan: (for Mr. Arthur Henderson) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the work of the Solidarity Committee of the United Associations of Great Britain and France, presided over by Lord Derby, has received the support of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Government are in full sympathy with this work and have decided to make a grant of £25,000 to the committee. They trust that the House will approve the necessary provision in a forthcoming Supplementary Estimate. This sum will be devoted in particular to the valuable work which the committee has been performing among French civilian evacuees in South-Western France in collaboration with the French Section of the International Commission for Refugees.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIDUCIARY NOTE ISSUE.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrenee: (by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any statement to make about the amount of the Fiduciary Note Issue?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir. Owing to the growing demand for currency, an increase in the Fiduciary Note Issue is necessary, and, acting under the power conferred by Section 8 of the Currency and Bank Notes Act, 1928, the Treasury have authorised an increase in the amount of the Fiduciary Note Issue by £50,000,000 to £630,000,000 as from to-day. The Treasury Minute will be laid before Parliament forthwith.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Lees-Smith: Will the Lord Privy Seal state the business for to-morrow and Thursday?

Mr. Attlee: The House will realise that in the face of the new developments in the war the Prime Minister and the Service Ministers are very heavily occupied with other business and it has therefore been found necessary to postpone the Secret Session which had been arranged for to-day. A statement was issued by the Government last night in order that hon.


Members might have the earliest possible notice of the change of business. The Secret Session will, of course, take place. [Hon. Members: "When?" and "Why?"] We shall consider to-day the several Bills which were announced for to-morrow in the following order:
Marriage (Scotland) (Emergency Provisions) Bill [Lords], Second Reading; Colonial Development and Welfare Bill, Committee, Report (if any) and Third Reading; Remission of Rates (London) Bill, Second Reading; Evidence and Powers of Attorney Bill [Lords], Committee, Report and Third Reading, and, if there is time, War Charities Bill [Lords], Second Reading.
Wednesday—Supply (10th Allotted Day); Committee—Unclassified Services, Vote 7 (Ministry of Home Security). Debate on Civil Defence.
Thursday—Supply (11th Allotted Day); Committee—Unclassified Services, Votes 5 and 6 (Ministry of Health (War Services) and Department of Health for Scotland (War Services) ). Debate on Evacuation and Emergency Hospital Services.

Captain Bellenger: While appreciating the reasons for postponing the Secret Session may I ask whether the Lord Privy Seal can give any indication as to how long the Secret Session is to be postponed?

Mr. Attlee: The hon. and gallant Member will realise that, while we shall try to have it as soon as we can, it must depend on events.

Mr. Cocks: May I ask on what Vote the Debate on Evacuation will take place, and whether it will be possible to discuss the larger question of the large-scale evacuation of children to the Dominions?

Mr. Attlee: It will take place on the Ministry of Health Vote.

Mr. Levy: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what there is to indicate that it is the desire of the House that the Secret Session shall now be held at all? Will he give us an explanation?

Mr. Attlee: The answer is that the request was made and the Government agreed to grant it, and, therefore, the Government will hold by their word.

Sir William Davison: But are not the conditions quite different now from those which prevailed when the Government were asked the question?

Mr. George Griffiths: May I ask whether on Civil Defence we shall be able to discuss Home Defence at the same time?

Mr. Attlee: No, Sir. Civil Defence is one subject. The subject for the Secret Session is Home Defence, and that is a different matter.

HOUSE OF LORDS (SECRET SESSION).

Mr. Mander: Will you be good enough, Mr. Speaker, to state, for the convenience of hon. Members, what arrangements have been made for Members of this House to attend any Secret Session that may be held in another place?

Mr. Speaker: I understand that on the occasion of Secret Sessions being held in another place, arrangements have been made to accommodate Members of this House in the galleries reserved for them and in the public gallery, and also at the Bar, as usual.

Mr. Mander: If there is no room, are you able to say whether the Peeresses' gallery will be available?

Mr. Speaker: Only the galleries which I have mentioned will be available.

Mr. Thorne: In that case would it not be advisable for Members who want to go to the other place to ballot?

Mr. Speaker: No, I do not think so.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Cuthbert Morley Headlam, Baronet, D.S.O., O.B.E., T.D., for the Borough of Newcastle-upon-Tyne (North Division).

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Cornwall Electric Power Bill,

London County Council (Money) Bill, without Amendment.

Agricultural Wages (Regulation) (Scotland) Bill, with Amendments.

WAR SITUATION.

ITALY'S DECISION.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

4.3 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): I rise to make a statement on recent happenings, in the absence, for the reasons which I have stated, of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Because of the pressure of war on other fronts, Allied Forces have been withdrawn from Norway, and the Norwegian forces in North Norway have laid down their arms. In order to save Norwegian territory from further destruction by the Germans and to watch over Norwegian interests during the war, the Norwegian King and Government have left Norway and come to this country. It was with deep regret that His Majesty's Government were forced to take the decision to abandon their campaign in North Norway at the moment it had turned in our favour and Narvik had fallen into our hands. The campaign had been bravely fought by the combined Allied forces under arduous conditions and had succeeded during the past two months in retaining vastly superior German forces away from other theatres of war. The time, however, had come when it was clear that all the available resources at the Allies' disposal must be employed on the main front where the issue of the war and the fate of Norway and all other free and democratic countries will be decided.
It was also a hard decision for the Norwegian King and Government to leave their own country. They had held out for two months against the full weight of the German forces and were undefeated at the end. During this time the example of the King's courage, devotion and dignity in distress had been the mainstay of the Norwegian resistance. Norway has decided to continue the struggle against Germany on other fronts. The Norwegian Government have made this clear in the Royal Proclamation issued on 9th June. Whereas before the British, French and Polish Governments have been helping the Norwegians in a war of independence, the Norwegian Government will now use all their resources to help the Allies in their war

against Germany. This decision, for which the Allied Governments are deeply grateful, is evidence of the conviction of the Norwegian people that the only hope for the future lies in an Allied victory and that the Allied cause, with which they are now more than ever identified, will surely prevail.
I regret to inform the House, as already announced in the Press, that the Aircraft Carrier "Glorious," the Destroyers "Ardent" and "Acasta," the oiler "Oil Pioneer," and the "Orama," an empty transport, are presumed to have been lost in an encounter with enemy forces following upon the withdrawal of our forces from Narvik. I regret that there are no further particulars available; as soon as they are available, they will be given to the House.
As the House knows, Italy declared war on Great Britain and France early this morning. Hardly ever before in history can the decision to embroil a great nation in war have been taken so wantonly and with so little excuse. There is no quarrel between the Italians and the British and French peoples. Since we became a nation we have never fought the Italians. On the other hand, when Italy, for so long divided and to a great extent enslaved by Germans, sought in the nineteenth century to become a united nation, it was British sympathy and help and French arms that enabled her to attain her desire. Great Britain and France have all along been prepared to consider any real grievances of Italy and to right them. We have sought repeatedly to come to an agreement with Italy. We have sought up to the last to prevent the war spreading to the Mediterranean peoples. The British and French Governments and the British and French peoples have been patient under constant abuse and provocation. Why, then, has Italy declared war? I say, for completely sordid and material motives, because Signor Mussolini thinks that he sees a chance of securing some spoils at the expense of the Western democracies now that they are at grips with the brute forces of Germany. Signor Mussolini uses the argument of the jackal which scents the possibility of getting some scraps from another beast's kill. He puts forward the argument of the petty sneak-thief to rob and rifle the pockets of the murderer's victim.
This is the ignoble role that Signor Mussolini has chosen for the great Italian people, which has made such a splendid contribution to European civilisation in the past. False to the finest traditions of that Roman Empire which laid the foundations of law and order in Europe, false to the Christian faith, false to the heritage and the culture of the Renaissance, betraying the men of the Risorgimento who struggled for freedom—Mazzini, Garibaldi, Victor Emanuel and Cavour—men who made Italy a free nation, Italians are now to aid the German barbarians in the attack upon civilisation. I cannot but believe that many Italians will feel ashamed of the role that has been thrust upon them. France, which freed the Italians from German domination, is now stabbed in the back by the descendants of the men she freed. Britain is to be attacked in the hope that by her destruction Mussolini may get some pickings for his new Roman Empire.
Signor Mussolini has made a profound mistake. The victims whose spoils he hopes to share are not dead. The French people, never greater than when in adversity, are fighting magnificently by sea, by air and on their own soil of France. Britain, with all its strength, in the air, by sea, and by land, is standing firmly by her side. The Italians, like the Germans, will find that they have to meet a resolute resistance. They will soon find—they are already finding—what is the might of sea-power. Already 14 ships have been seized, 10 others are in our ports, and three, on the best German model, have been scuttled. The imaginary restraints which our occupation of the Eastern and Western ends of the Mediterranean are supposed to impose upon Italy in time of peace become realities in time of war. Italy, like Germany, will feel the blockade. I say we have no ill-will to the Italian people. We are sorry that they should be brought to the slaughter on account of the overweening ambition and the lust for blood of the Duce, but we are prepared to meet the challenge. We shall give them blow for blow.
The two dictators have united to destroy democracy. Democracy will answer the challenge. From across the Atlantic has come the answer of a great democracy. It was as if day followed the night when, only a few hours after the dictator of

Italy had made his dastardly announcement to the serried ranks of Blackshirts, the President of the United States delivered to the youth of his country a message worthy of that great and free Republic, and in extending the whole of America's sympathy to those nations that are giving their lifeblood in the combat against force and hate, Mr. Roosevelt has vitally inspired the free people of Europe. His assurance that the material resources of his great industrial nation will be placed at the disposal of the Allies makes it inevitable that, however hard the road, the cause of civilisation will in the end prevail.
Let me say to the House and to the country that this new attack does not cause us dismay. It makes no difference to our stern resolution to defeat all our enemies or to our confidence in our ability to withstand all attacks and achieve victory. Rather it should increase our determination to strain every nerve to meet all the dangers and difficulties of this critical time in the sure knowledge that we fight, not for ourselves alone, but for the freedom of the human spirit.

4.12 p.m.

Mr. Lees-Smith: The most important part of the statement of the Lord Privy Seal—

Mr. Thurtle: On a point of Order. Arising out of the statement of the Lord Privy Seal, may a Member put a question to him on that statement?

Mr. Speaker: Certainly, an hon. Member may put a question.

Mr. Lees-Smith: As I was saying, the most important part of the statement of the Lord Privy Seal was that which dealt with the declaration of war by the Fascist dictator, and at this moment I think only one thing needs to be said. I will put it in one sentence. Both the dictators have now thrown off their masks and have become avowed accomplices, and it is therefore now clear to all men everywhere that on this country and on France depend the hopes of free men in every nation of the world.

4.13 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: May I ask the Deputy-Leader of the House whether the broadcast made by the Minister of Information last night received the approval of the Government?

Mr. Attlee: I am afraid the hon. and gallant Member has put that question without notice. I did not hear the broadcast, and I have no special information with regard to it.

4.14 p.m.

Sir Percy Harris: This is not the occasion for discussion or debate; the statement made by the Deputy-Leader of the House is far too grave and the situation is too serious. I assume that, either in secret Session or in public, the whole situation will be reviewed by the Prime Minister, and on that understanding I think we shall be able to pass to the next business.

4.15 p.m.

Captain Vyvyan Adams: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he is able to answer this Question? Is it now the resolve of His Majesty's Government to redress the wrongs done in Ethiopia and Spain?

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware of the fulsome eulogy of Italian Fascism in this statement that I have in my hands by Lord Lloyd and Viscount Halifax, and will he have this statement withdrawn from publication and have action taken against the authors of it?

4.16 p.m.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Will the Government draw a distinction between Italians and Italians, and remember that the Pope has stood for peace, and that His Holiness is a figure we must reverence and look up to? Will it also be remembered that we have, in the King of Italy, a man who stood for peace, and that we ought to distinguish between King Victor Emmanuel, the real Monarch of the Italian people, and Signor Mussolini, the "castor-oil king"?

4.17 p.m.

Mr. Thurtle: I wish to say a word or two on the speech which has just been made by the Lord Privy Seal. It seems to me that we are having too much in the way of bombastic talk. I listened, last night, to the Minister of Information, and I was really horrified at his bombastic tone. I believe the people of this country want less talk and more action. There was a phrase in connec-

tion with the South African war about "Stop killing Kruger with your mouth." It seems to me that there has been far too much killing of both Hitler and Mussolini with our mouths. I would suggest that there is a certain strength in silence, and that until we are ready to act strongly we had better talk less loudly.

4.18 p.m.

Commander Sir Archibald South by: With regard to the naval action off the coast of Norway, I entirely appreciate that at the present time it is not possible for the Lord Privy Seal to give a detailed account of what has occurred. But, in view of the German reports which have appeared in the Press, can he say whether these reports are substantially correct or not, because there is, in the German accounts, ground for serious concern for people in this country? Can the Lord Privy Seal say whether he will be able to make a detailed statement at an early date in regard to this naval action which has ended disastrously for us?

Mr. Cocks: Has the Lord Privy Seal any information concerning the statement made, this morning, in the "Times," that the Italian Royal family vigorously opposed the war, and that Signor Mussolini threatened to depose the King?

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid we cannot expect an answer on that point.

Mr. Mander: I really do not expect the Lord Privy Seal to give me a reply, but I would ask him to give this matter consideration and to bear it in mind. The Emperor of Ethiopia is in this country. Will the Government be good enough to consider the possibility of facilitating His Majesty's return to his dominions?

4.19 p.m.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: In view of the observations which have come from some other parts of the House, may I ask for an assurance that the Government are not going to be on the defensive in regard to Italy, but that they are going to attack Italy? If we adopt the policy of being on the defensive, as seems to be suggested in some parts of the House, we shall find that Spain will, in a very short time, come in. I ask for an assurance that we are going to attack Italy, and not be on the defensive.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. Attlee: I think that the House will agree with me that most of these questions do not really require on answer to-day. The House will not expect me to make a statement as to what our plans are. I would say, in answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Handsworth (Commander Locker-Lampson), that I thought that in my statement I made a clear distinction between the Italian people and Signor Mussolini. I am not aware that I was bombastic. I stated our determination. In regard to the other questions, obviously, I have not had notice of them, but the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Sir A. South by) will realise that I said I had given all the information I had at my disposal. Therefore, there is nothing I can add, but I am sure that the First Lord of the Admiralty will give any additional information as soon as possible.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Margesson): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — MARRIAGE (SCOTLAND) (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

4.22 p.m.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. T. M.Cooper): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill, which comes from another place, is the counterpart of a similar Measure passed during the last war, and, I think, it requires very few words from me to explain it to the House. Its purpose is to facilitate the marriage of two persons one of whom is on war service. War service is defined in Clause 2 of the Bill in unusually wide terms to cover service during the war period, not only in any of His Majesty's Naval, Military, or Air Forces, but also to cover anyone in the nursing or other auxiliary services of any of those Forces, and any other service during the war period, whether within or outside the United Kingdom, in any British ship. So the House will observe that the term is sufficiently wide to include women as well as men, and

to include the Merchant Service and all the auxiliary services in addition to the Fighting Services.
The necessity for the Bill arises in this way. Under the existing law, before a regular marriage can be contracted, both parties—that is to say, each party—must have a 15-days'residential qualification in order to give the necessary notice to the registrar, and the certificate is not issued until seven days have elapsed. Obviously under present conditions, as under the conditions which prevailed during the last war, these requirements cannot be satisfied in cases where one of the contracting parties is on war service. Accordingly, the Bill proposes that where one of the parties to the intended marriage is on war service the notice may be given on the strength of the other's residential qualification, and, further, that the certificate may be issued, not seven days, but one day after notice has been given. In other words, the preliminaries to a marriage are reduced to what I might fairly describe as the minimum consistent with the necessities of the case. There is one special reason present in this case which was not present during the last war, which renders this Bill specially desirable. Under an Order made on 1st July,the Act which was passed last session, the Marriage (Scotland) Act, 1939, which we were accustomed to refer to as the Gretna Green Act, will come into force. Therefore, the benefits to be derived from this Bill will be all the greater, because of the abolition of irregular marriages.
The Church of Scotland at the General Assembly which recently took place passed an Act of Assembly, the precise terms of which I have not been able to obtain, the effect of which is, substantially, to do for marriages preceded by banns what this Bill does for marriages preceded by notices. Accordingly, if this Bill is passed, identical requirements will prevail, both for marriage in the Church by a minister, and marriage of a civil type before a registrar. I think that these explanations are sufficient to justify the Bill.

4.26 p.m.

Mr. Mathers: I think it is right that a Measure of this kind should be passed at this time to deal with marriages during a time of emergency, such as the war in which we are engaged at the present time. The Lord Advocate


has made an important point when he says that from the beginning of July it will be all the more necessary to have this relaxation of the law which will then be in force. I do not think there is any need to comment upon the Bill any more than the Lord Advocate has done. He has explained it very clearly, and I am sure that on these benches there will be a unanimous desire that it should be given an early passage into law.
Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
Bill read a Second time. Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for Thursday.—[Sir J. Edmondson.]

Orders of the Day — COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE BILL.

Considered in Committee

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE I.—(Schemes for colonial development and welfare.)

4.29 p.m.

Mr. Riley: I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, after "Treasury," to insert:
and after consultation with Advisory Committees to be appointed by him
The purpose of this Amendment is, more than anything else, to elicit information as to what the Government have in mind in regard to the kind of committees which are contemplated, not in the Bill itself, apparently, but in the Financial and Explanatory Memorandum of the Bill. The Memorandum, referring to the provision of £5,000,000 per annum for the development and welfare work envisaged in the Bill, says:
In planning the expenditure the Secretary of State will enlist the help of a Colonial Development and Welfare Advisory Committee which will be composed partly of official and partly of unofficial members, and of a Colonial Research Advisory Committee.
It was contemplated when the Bill was drafted that these committees would be set up, but for some reason there is no provision in the Bill to set them up. The purpose of the Amendment, therefore, is to make it statutory that the advisory committees shall be consulted, for we take the view that before schemes are sanctioned by the Secretary of State he should consult these committees. Another

point involved in the Amendment is the composition of the committees. The Memorandum says that they shall be composed partly of official and partly of unofficial members. What is meant by "official"? Is it intended that civil servants shall be the official members? What type of unofficial members has the Secretary of State in mind? Will the official members be appointed as paid permanent members of the committee? Will the word "unofficial" cover representatives from Parliament?
The importance of this question arises to some extent from expressions of opinion made in the House from time to time, particularly on the Colonial Vote, as to the desirability and, indeed, the necessity of having the Houses of Parliament directly associated with Colonial development through Members of Parliament who would be responsible to Parliament for the expenditure involved in a Bill of this kind. This House has recognised the importance of Colonial development, and its absence has been deplored by Members on all sides as being responsible for grievances and unsatisfactory conditions. Therefore, if there is to be a committee to supervise the spending of £5,000,000 a year for 10 years on this development, we ought to know whether Parliament will be directly associated with the work by having Members of Parliament on the committee. I would recall to the Committee how strong was the feeling in the House last June when we had before us the report of the Secretary of State on the state of the Colonies. The feeling was then expressed by Members on both sides that it was highly desirable that there should be a much closer touch between Members of Parliament and the work of Colonial administration. I am not suggesting that it should be as close as that in the French Parliament with their Colonial Committee, but we know that for many years there has been—I will not say culpable neglect of Colonial conditions—but there have been in our Colonies conditions so deplorable that we have been shocked from time to time at the state of things which has been revealed.

4.38 p.m.

Dr. Haden Guest: It is essential that there should be consultation with an advisory committee which is detached from the immediate


and detailed duties with which the Colonial Office is pre-occupied, and a committee which is able to take a wide view of Colonial problems and to attempt to keep them in their proper perspective. It is clear that one of the dangers to which this fund will be subjected will be attacks made upon it by different Colonial areas, with projects of their own, asking for considerable sums of money and looking at the matter from their own points of view. That is natural; it is, indeed, inevitable. It is not the business of Colony X Y Z to consider the requirements of Colony A B C,but it should be the duty of this advisory committee to balance projects one against the other, to keep general order and to decide precedence in the importance of projects which may be submitted for consideration. This is especially necessary with regard to this fund, because "colonies" is a term which embraces very different countries. Cyprus is one country, Nigeria is another; we could not find two more different places; their problems are entirely different. One is a very sophisticated area, with an ancient civilisation, and the other, although it has a long history and has interesting contacts with ancient civilisations, is in a condition of not very advanced development and needs entirely different treatment. In the cases of Cyprus and some of the other Colonies which have had established governments and Europeanised laws for a long period, it is essential, in my view and in that of a great many people who have considered these matters, that the advisory committee should keep these general problems under review. They should consider, for instance, how much money is to be spent on improving the agriculture of the Africans for their own nutrition in West Africa, and how much is to be spent on restoring the damaged structure of society in the West Indies.
These matters are difficult of adjustment, and there must be an advisory committee to consider them and to make their judgments and to present them to the Colonial Office. I would remind the Under-Secretary of the valuable work which was done over a period of years in Australia by the Development and Migration Committee which reviewed what required to be done in the different States of Australia, considering the different claims by the separate States for

assistance, and introduced order into the projects for the development of Australia which, if they had only been allowed to go on—which, unfortunately, they were not—would have led to great development in Australia on a regularised and scientifically-thought-out plan. That is the kind of thing which is required in the Colonial Empire. It is required more than in Australia because the conditions in the various parts of the Colonial Empire are so diverse and so conflicting that it is necessary to have an advisory committee to consider them.
I hope that there is no question of going back on what is set out in the Explanatory Memorandum, where special attention is drawn to the importance of the Welfare Advisory Committee and the Colonial Research Committee. I am a little afraid that the hon. Gentleman may say that advisory committees are not necessary, owing to the fact that there must be a limitation of Colonial expenditure at the present time. I would say, on the contrary, that if there is to be a serious limitation of such expenditure, it is more than ever necessary that there should be advisory committees in order that all projects may receive consideration, apart from the detailed consideration given by the Colonial Office itself. I hope, therefore, that the Under-Secretary may find it possible to accept the Amendment which appears to embody, in clearer words than those of the Clause as drafted, the intention of the Bill according to the Explanatory Memorandum. The Amendment will, I submit, make the Bill work better and enable such money as is expended, to be spent to advantage.

4.46 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. George Hall): My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) said he wished to take advantage of this opportunity to get a definition of the functions of the advisory committees which are to be set up in connection with this scheme. This afternoon, I am afraid I can add little to the statements which were made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health during the Second Reading Debate. My right hon. Friend then said;
The Government ought to draw on that experience and wisdom and that is why, although no statutory advisory committees are being set up under this Bill, we propose to establish two new advisory committees as part


of the policy of colonial development and welfare which was announced a few months ago. There will be one advisory committee, partly official and partly unofficial, on colonial development and welfare, and another committee on colonial research."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st May, 1940; col. 50, Vol. 361.]
Reference is also made to the matter in the Memorandum attached to the Bill and in the statement of policy. The advisory committees will be advisory in every sense of the word. As to the words "official" and "unofficial" I take it that the members will be officials in the Department plus a number of progressively-minded individuals from outside who have considerable knowledge and experience of the Colonies and of Colonial development. I have not yet heard that it is intended to appoint Members of Parliament to these committees. The hon. Member also asked whether members of the committee would be paid salaries. They will not be paid salaries as such, but incidental expenses incurred in doing the work of these committees will be met. With regard to the question of a Parliamentary Colonial Committee, in which I know the hon. Member is deeply interested, I am afraid I cannot give him any more information than that which was given to him by the former Secretary of State in answer to a question about the advisability of establishing such a committee. I would point out that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have not long since taken office. We have naturally been very much concerned about many matters connected with the Department, but we have not yet been able to give full attention to all the questions which are likely to arise. The position, however, is as I have stated.
As regards the proposed Amendment, I do not think it would add to the efficiency of the Bill. It would make the procedure much more rigid than it is under the Bill as it stands. The advisory committees will be used in every possible way in dealing with major development schemes which are likely to be brought about as a result of the operation of the Bill, but there are other matters, relating to housing, health and education, for instance, in connection with which it will be necessary to make grants from time to time to assist Colonial Governments. We feel that if all these matters had to be submitted to advisory committees, as

would be the case if the Amendment were carried, it would, as the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Mr. E. Evans) pointed out in the Second Reading Debate, tend to cause delay, whereas we are inclined to expedite as far as possible the consideration of all schemes. I suggest that instead of adding to the rigidity of the scheme we ought to try to loosen the procedure if we can, and I think the Bill in its present form will be more helpful than it would be in the altered form suggested by the Amendment. I am sorry, therefore, that I must ask the Committee not to accept this, the first Amendment moved on this Bill.

Dr. Guest: Is it the intention of the Colonial Office to set up these committees?

Mr. Hall: Perhaps the hon. Member will await the Third Reading, when I shall have something to say on these matters.

Dr. Guest: This is relevant to the question of whether the Amendment is to be persisted in or not. If it is the intention of the Government to appoint these committees that is one thing, but if it is not the intention to do so, the Amendment should be pressed.

Mr. Hall: It may be taken by the Committee that it is the intention that, at some time, these advisory committees will be appointed.

4.54 p.m.

Mr. Riley: I confess I am not quite satisfied with the Under-Secretary's answer. I do not understand why a provision about these committees is not a part of the Bill. They ought to be made statutory. They are referred to in the Memorandum, but there is no reference to them in the Bill. I do not see the force of the hon. Gentleman's point that the acceptance of the Amendment making it obligatory on the Secretary of State to consult the advisory committees would make the Bill less efficient. The Memorandum states:
In planning the expenditure the Secretary of State will enlist the help of a Colonial Development and Welfare Advisory Committee.
If it is regarded as important, indeed fundamentally important, to have committees of this kind, why not include them in the statutory provisions? Our view, contrary to that of the Under-


Secretary, is that these words would strengthen the Bill by making it obligatory to have consultation before schemes are agreed upon as the schemes would then be decided on the merits. As to the inclusion of Members of Parliament in such committees, may I remind the hon. Gentleman that in recent years Members of Parliament have been included in two very important Colonial committees? The House of Commons was directly represented on the Empire Marketing Board by three or four Members and on the Colonial Development Marketing Board there were, I think, five Members of Parliament. We are not therefore suggesting something for which there is no precedent. But, most important of all, there is the strongly expressed opinion in the House of Commons a year ago when the whole of our Colonial administration was under review, about the importance of associating the House directly with the economic development and welfare of the Colonies.

The Chairman: I am afraid that I cannot allow the question of a Parliamentary Commission to deal with Colonial problems generally, to be debated on this Amendment. It has been referred to, but I think that the extent of those references is as far as I can allow it to go.

Mr. Riley: I content myself with that reference, and I hope the Secretary of State will take it into account. May I also call the hon. Gentleman's attention to a statement made by the present Minister of Health during the Second Reading Debate in reply to a question which I put to him about the composition of the committee:
The position is that we have selected the chairman, Lord Moyne, and have given some preliminary consideration in the Colonial Office to the composition of the rest of the committee. We are decided, of course, that it shall be composed partly of officials and partly of non-officials, and I may add that I myself have formed certain definite views, but I must leave any announcement on the actual composition of the committee to be made by my successor or by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st May, 1940; cols. 121–122, Vol. 361.]
It is clear that the late Secretary of State had definite views on the nature and composition of the committee. I hope, therefore, that in spite of the fact that the Under-Secretary cannot accept the Amendment, he will pay attention to the express wish of the House of Commons

to be associated more definitely with Colonial development.

Mr. Price: Is there any reason why the advisory committees should not be appointed fairly soon? The hon. Gentleman indicated just now that such committees would be appointed, but left us in some doubt as to when the appointment would take place. I feel that if we had a definite assurance that the committees would be appointed fairly soon, it might not be thought necessary by my hon. Friends to press this Amendment.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Ammon: I suggest to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that perhaps he would make it easier for the Committee and for himself if he were a little more definite on the point which has been referred to. He recognises, with everybody else, that what is in the Memorandum is not in the Bill, and that when the Bill comes to be implemented we may be told that certain words are not included in it although they were in the Memorandum. It is the memory of the work of other advisory committees and of promises which have been made during the passage of Bills that creates some little doubt in our minds. I should think we might have fallen in with the point of view put by the Colonial Secretary had it not been that there was a certain amount of hesitancy as to whether or not these committees would be appointed. Whatever else happens, we have a right to a more definite statement; for him to say that they will be appointed at some time or other is not good enough; and even though it may spoil his peroration on the Third Reading I hope he will make such a statement, because if we have to wait till the Third Reading the chance of this House doing anything will have gone. We have no doubt about the hon. Gentleman's good will and good intentions, though on this side we may feel some little doubt about his chief. If he could give us a definite statement, as I believe he could, that it is the intention of his chief and himself to appoint these committees, then perhaps my hon. Friends might withdraw the Amendment.

5.3 p.m.

Mr. George Hall: Let me disabuse the minds of Members of the Committee of any idea that these committees are not to


be appointed. The Secretary of State and myself are quite clear in our minds that the pledges which have been given about the appointment of these committees shall be carried out. I have a statement to make on the Third Reading of the Bill dealing with their postponement for a short while, for the reason, of course, that we are engaged in a war and that that must interfere to some extent with the work which it is intended shall be done in the Colonies when this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. That really is mainly the reason for any postponement which may take place in the appointment of these committees. My hon Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) asked why these committees were not to be statutory. I attempted to explain why in my first speech. It is not suggested that every item of expenditure which will come out of the grants paid from this Fund should be considered by a statutory committee. There will be recurring expenses, such as maintenance of education, public health and things of that kind; but in the case of all major schemes of Colonial development, where large sums are involved, even development schemes of any kind, the advisory committees will, as was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Health, be used to the full. I hope that I have cleared the minds of the Committee with regard to the intentions of the Government in this matter.

Mr. Riley: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. Creech Jones: I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, after "that," to insert:
there is no embargo upon the establishment of effective trade unions and that.
I appreciate the fact that in the past few years the Colonial Office has attempted to secure the establishment in most of our Colonies not only of labour codes but also of effective trade union machinery. I am not foolish enough to suppose that every Colony is ripe for trade union organisation on the lines that we know in this country, but a very serious effort has been made in a number of Colonies to found trade unionism on sound principles, and a considerable amount of encouragement

has been given by previous Ministers to the efforts to secure by law that the organisations that are established function effectively. What we want to secure is that before grants are made by the Colonial Office towards social improvements, new public works or new forms of economic development, at least inquiries should be made about the degree to which the local Government is prepared to see that trade unionism is permitted to operate in its Colony and that there is a substantial law to ensure that trade unions work effectively. Too often in the past civil liberty has been seriously encroached upon by sedition law, by a rather rigid interpretation of various restrictive measures. That has put considerable obstacles in the way of building up trade union organisation. In some cases there has been racial discrimination and what has been permitted for the white workers has not been permitted for the black workers.
What we ask is that if a grant of money is to be made out of the British Treasury, there should be some reasonable guarantee that the local Government are securing for the workers in the Colony concerned the right of combination to improve their working conditions. The Amendment speaks of "effective trade unions". In certain Colonies in recent months trade-union legislation has been under consideration, and although there has been no dubiety about the views of the Colonial Office or the Colonial Secretary, nevertheless the local Government has modified the trade-union law so as to make trade unionism ineffective, because not only are funds not protected in time of dispute but there is interference with peaceful picketing. It is because we attach importance to having effective trade-union law in as many Colonies as are ripe for the growth and development of trade unionism that we have put down this Amendment.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: I desire to support the Amendment because I feel it is essential in present circumstances that there should be no embargo upon the establishment of effective trade unions. Debates on Colonial matters and the reports of various Commissions have revealed, it will be generally agreed, that the standards of native life in various Colonies are almost without exception


altogether too low. We on this side of the Committee feel, and perhaps the Committee in general will agree, that one of the strongest and most valuable instruments for raising those low standards is the right of combination, the right to utilise the trade union movement. In every Colony there ought to be free and unfettered trade unions, independent of interference from the local Governments. We are satisfied that only by collective action and bargaining can standards be improved. Individual action which has been in operation in the Colonies has merely set worker against worker, with the result that wages are altogether lower than they ought to be, and things are made worse for European workers by reason of the existence of submerged labour.
Where trade unions do exist in the Colonies they are not too much welcomed by those in authority, and we feel that if this Amendment were adopted they would have something in the nature of statutory authority. Take the case of Barbados. When the Trade Union Bill was under consideration there the right to peaceful picketing was omitted, clearly an unfortunate omission. In Trinidad, when the war broke out, the Mayor of Port of Spain forbade the use of the city square for trade union meetings, which it had been customary to hold there, and the Commissioner of Police informed the labour leaders that during the war they would not be allowed to address the workers, as had formerly been permitted. Further, organisers were arrested under the; Emergency Defence Act and alleged to have committed breaches of the law which would have been regarded as ridiculous if judged by the standards applied to the trade union movement in this country. It is for reasons like those that we say the position of the trade unions in the Colonial Empire should be strengthened by the addition of the words suggested in the Amendment.

5.15 p.m.

Colonel Ponsonby: I feel that the Clause as drawn goes quite as far as is necessary. To insert this Amendment to bring in trade unions is really quite unnecessary. I was interested in the remarks made by the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones), and I apologise to him here for having misquoted him in the Debate on the Second

Reading. I thought all the time, both as regards himself and the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, that it would be extremely valuable if they had been able to visit some of these countries in order to see for themselves whether the Amendment would work.
The hon. Member for Shipley suggested that some of these countries are not ripe for this proposal. That is the point that I should like to stress. The majority of the people in Africa are in a stage of civilisation corresponding probably to the civilisation of this country 2,000 years ago. We will not go into the question whether the mind of the African is the same as the mind of the white man, but I suggest that if the hon. Members wish to appreciate the development of the mind of a native African, they could not do better than read a book called "Red Strangers" by Elspeth Huxley. They will have some idea then of the state of civilisation of these people for whom it is suggested that we should provide trade union rules. After all, only about 2 per cent. of those people at the very outside can be said to understand matters of everyday life in the same way as white people, and it is the danger of that 2 per cent. that we have to guard against. The intelligentsia, by their knowledge, perhaps sometimes not disinterested, may promote all sorts of trouble by carrying away the mass of the population by their fanaticism or otherwise.
I will give the Committee a small example. In 1915 a native, called John Chilembwe, of Nyasaland, went to America, where he became religious mad. He came back to Nyasaland, where, as the result of his persuasion, he provoked a number of tribes to revolt. There were other reasons for the revolt, and I may say that it started by the murder of an unpopular planter and his decapitation. His head was put on the altar of the church. I mention this matter to show the influence that a fanatic, and especially a religious fanatic, may have over primitive people. That is what we have to avoid. It has been said that a nation gets the government it deserves; I feel that we ought not to give to primitive people institutions for which they are not ready, and therefore I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will resist the Amendment, which I am not at all sure is for the benefit of the people whom it is intended to serve.

Mr. Riley: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman allow me to remind him that there are many Colonies which have had centuries of British rule and civilisation, and where trade unions have been struggling for establishment in the last few years?

Colonel Ponsonby: I agree with the hon. Member, but we are dealing with a general Bill applying to all Colonies. While the Amendment might apply to some Colonies, it does not apply to all, and therefore it would be unfortunate to put it into the Bill.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Mathers: I hope that the Minister will be able to withstand the arguments that have been put forward by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I think we all agree that he put them forward with perfect sincerity and with no desire to limit the establishment of trade unions where they can properly exist. One recognises the point he makes about people from the Colonies coming to this country, taking an education in law and going back to become, because of that education, leaders of agitators in their own country, but that matter might easily be dealt with, it seems to me.
The point which I wanted to put to the Committee is apart altogether from the purely trade-union aspect of this matter. I wanted to point out to the Minister the desirability of accepting the Amendment because of our declarations that we stand for bringing these more primitive people—or less advanced, if you please to call them so—forward as rapidly as possible to a condition where they will be able to look after their own government. We stand for democracy. The way in which democracy has extended itself in this country and has made this country a model for the world, from the Parliamentary point of view, has largely been through men and women serving what may be called their apprenticeship in looking after their own affairs in their own communities. The extension of opportunity for development on trade-union lines among workers in the Colonies would be a matter of training these people for the greater responsibilities of democracy that will come along when they have an opportunity of taking a greater share in the running of affairs in their own country.
Nothing would keep them on right lines better than making it clear to them that, in a trade union, they would have to raise money by which that trade union would be run. That would immediately put a restraint upon them in respect of their activity, because they must not dissipate unwisely the funds which they have collected. They would know the feeling of responsibility, and be held by it in a way which would bring them forward more rapidly towards the self-government which we hold out as the desirable end for them to attain. I hope that this additional consideration will help the Minister to decide against the hon. and gallant Member and in favour of the Amendment.

5.24 p.m.

Mr. Ammon: I am chiefly concerned with the remarks made by the hon. and gallant Member for Sevenoaks (Colonel Ponsonby), who has read into the Amendment a good deal more than is in it. He has rather put up too many arguments on the old debating principle of being able to knock them down again. To a large extent, the Bill goes a very long way towards meeting the position asked for by my hon. Friends. They are asking that provision should be made, as and when education and the deepening of knowledge, understanding, industry and economic development permit, for machinery whereby these natives could advance step by step towards protecting their own interests in the proper way. Some of us, even though we sit on this side of the Committee, have visited the Colonies. I spent a few months in West Africa two years ago, seeing something of the work of administration there. The Government of Nigeria had brought in, on their own initiative, legislation based upon the Act of 1927 passed in this country. They asked me to look through it and to make what criticisms I thought were necessary. Although there are communities which are not ready for such a development, there is a great deal of development in Lagos more than in the hinterland of Nigeria itself. The Government have recognised that the development which is growing up there would serve people better if they organised in a trade union movement. They brought in a Bill, which provided that such trade unions exist under the fiat of the Governor.
So far from being unnecessary, it may be that such a development is very necessary. As the hon. and gallant Member will be aware, trade unions cannot be established unless they are registered and recognised. That in itself provides plenty of safeguards for the governing authorities to see that the provision is in no way abused. Seeing that the Government have gone a long way towards meeting the case that has been submitted, I hope my hon. Friend will see his way to accept, even if not in these exact words, the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. George Hall: We have had a very interesting Debate upon this Amendment, which was argued very forcibly by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones). So far as I am personally concerned, it is knocking at an open door. No one can argue the advantages of trade unions to me, because I have been cradled in them for too many years. My hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) helped with the matter, and put it in its proper perspective, when he said that the words of the Bill went a long way towards meeting the point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley and other hon. Members who have spoken—with the exception of the hon. and gallant Member for Sevenoaks (Colonel Ponsonby). He was concerned with Colonies which he thinks are not ripe for this step forward, but he did not declare himself as opposed to trade unions. He thought that the imposition of trade unionism on the Colonies might have disastrous effects.
The Colonial Office has done all that it possibly can to encourage the growth of trade unionism in all the Colonies. As long ago as 1930, Colonial Governments were urged to enact legislation declaring that trade unions were not criminal or unlawful for civil purposes, and were asked to give sympathetic supervision and guidance to their organisation and development. Since that time, trade union legislation has been passed in a very large number of the Colonial Dependencies. At the present time the number of workers' trade unions, registered in accordance with the requirements of the Colonial legislation, is in the neighbourhood of 180. The majority of those are in Cyprus, Ceylon, Jamaica, British Guiana and Trinidad. The move-

ment is now also developing in West Africa, and even in territories such as in East Africa, where the movement is necessarily most backward, development is taking place and some unions are being formed. We must, of course, recognise that many of these new unions are in a very early stage of development and therefore are in need of guidance so as to enable them to develop on sound lines. This problem is engaging the attention of the Colonial labour departments and the Colonial Office at the present time, and I hope that something will be done to assist those areas on the right lines.
The Government are not unsympathetic to the point of view which was put forward by my hon. Friends, and although we cannot accept the words which are in the Amendment, we are prepared to consider, in consultation with my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell, with my hon. Friends whose names are down to the Amendment, and with my hon. Friend on this side, as to whether we can get such words as will simply represent what both hon. Members and the Colonial Office have in mind. Those words can then be inserted when the Bill is brought forward in another place. I hope that, with that assurance, the Amendment will be withdrawn.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. Creech Jones: I beg to move, in page 2, line 13, to leave out "standard rates," and to insert:
rates recognised by trade unions in the area where the work is being executed, or where no such rates exist in the district, the trade union rates recognised in the nearest comparable area.
The words in the Bill:
that the wages paid will be at not less than the standard rates,
are unfortunately somewhat ambiguous, and it is because of our desire to be a little more exact as to what are the rates which should govern employment that the Amendment has been put down. I confess that the Amendment is not as happily worded as one would like because of the difficulty of expressing what is in our minds, but on this side of the Committee in days gone by we have repeatedly pointed out the deplorable wage standards operating in certain of our Colonies, wage standards which are perfectly inexcusable and unjustifiable, whereas with a little


effort on the part of Governments as well as of employers higher standards could quite well have been established. In certain Colonies there are no trade union rates, no trade union machinery, there has been recognised neither the right of combination nor the right of negotiation, and there has been no recognition of the unions or conciliation machinery for determining standard rates. It is our desire that when schemes are inaugurated under the Bill, there shall be something better than the deplorable wages which are now paid in many territories. It is for that reason that we ask for a better definition as to what constitutes a standard rate.
The present practice in respect of wages often gives rise to a great deal of internal competition for labour in the Colonies. In spite of that competition, standards remain deplorably low, and because of the competition the economic organisation and development of the Colonies is frequently seriously prejudiced. That is also the case in respect of competition for labour by a neighbouring territory where enterprise is possibly a little more profitable or where a slightly higher standard of wages is paid. If hon. Members have referred to the observations of Sir Alan Pim in regard to Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland following his investigations a few years ago, they will know that he makes this point, that the effect of competition for labour by outside territories may have a very prejudicial effect on the development of the Colony itself. It is because we want a reasonable and just standard of wages that we have tried to frame this Amendment.
Perhaps I may also quote a case which is now actively receiving the attention of the Colonial Office in regard to what are styled standard wages or fair rates in Palestine now. The authorities now are prepared to pay what is recognised as a fair wage. The fair wage was defined, when the Haifa harbour was being constructed, as 3s. a day, but because the Palestine Government can get any amount of cheap labour at 2s. a day, the War Office in its military works may not pay other than the fair wage, and therefore are obliged to pay what the Palestine Government determine is the fair wage of 2s. rather than what was previously recognised as the standard rate of 3s. a day. It is because

of the ambiguity of what constitutes standard rates that we have put down this Amendment. I therefore hope that the Under-Secretary will see the force of our argument and, if our Amendment does not happen to express what is in our minds, will give some consideration to a form of words which will meet us, so that at least a standard rate of wages is payable under any scheme promoted by the Bill.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: I am glad to support this Amendment. The word "standard" in the Bill is a very elusive term. Whose standard is it? Is it the standard of the employers in the district or the aspirations of the employés in that area? Is it a standard which has been established by custom, or is it something which has been enforced upon unwilling employers? The purport of this Amendment is to bring Colonial practice in these matters in harmony with what exists so far as this Government and the municipalities of the Kingdom are concerned. It is expressed in the Fair Wages Clause, which is now so generally adopted throughout the country, that the wages and conditions shall be those which have been agreed to between the employers and employed, and, in harmony with our Amendment, where no such conditions prevail such conditions as are considered fair in the particular trade concerned shall be adopted by employers and employed alike. It would be very unfortunate indeed if there were not afforded some additional protection such as we suggest. Leaving the matter merely to the term "standard" would leave the gate open for much controversy. I can imagine strikes and disputes arising from much less reason. After all, the main purport of this Bill is to maintain the welfare and the development of the Colonial Empire.
With regard to monetary expenditure, it is unfortunate that the Bill does not particularise the amount to be expended on welfare as against the amount to be expended on development. We must, however, grasp at this opportunity, which is an excellent one, for providing that the labour conditions in the various Colonies shall be upon the same equitable basis as prevails in this country in the matter of Government contracts, and in the great municipalities of this Kingdom.

5.41 p.m.

Colonel Ponsonby: I sympathise heartily with the hon. Members who have put down this Amendment, because it is almost impossible to phrase what they want. For instance, if we take the practical application of this last sentence:
where no such rates exist in the district, the trade union rates recognised in the nearest comparable area",
we might come up against a proposition such as this: In Nyasaland certain public works under one of these schemes might be contemplated. The nearest comparable area where similar public works are contemplated or in progress might be Uganda, 1,000 miles away, under different conditions of work, labour and everything else. Therefore, if this Amendment were taken as it is, it would create a comparison that would be impracticable. When the Under-Secretary is revising these two Amendments, I hope that he will put on his thinking cap and try to produce something which will work in practice.

5.43 p.m.

Sir Patrick Hannon: The difficulty here is to fix a fair wage rather than a standard wage. I do not know what standard will apply to natives under the direction of my hon. Friend's office. I believe that the anxiety of everybody in this Committee is to secure that men employed either in private or public employment shall receive fair wages and, if the possibility of organisation presents itself, that encouragement should be given to them to form appropriate trade unions in the various crafts in which they are engaged. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, how can you determine a standard rate of wages in Uganda or Nyasaland, or even in the West Indies, where there is a tolerable degree of civilisation? The Under-Secretary will have difficulty in putting in the right language what the hon. Gentleman opposite is anxious to secure. However, if the Government secure that wages are on as high a level as possible relative to the type of employment, this Committee will have done its duty.

5.45 p.m.

Sir Stanley Reed: I sincerely hope that the Under-Secretary will not accept the Amendment in its present form, not for any reasons that I can give, but for the excellent reasons given by the

hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones). This Amendment does not, and cannot, carry out the purposes that he has in view. We are all agreed that we want not a standard wage, not a static wage, but a steadily improving wage, so far as economic conditions justify, throughout the whole of our Colonial possessions. That is not to be obtained by this Amendment, because there are not comparable conditions. My own experience has been that the moment you go outside any area, you find totally different conditions. The most that we can hope to do is to leave the Minister to digest the essence of what we have tried to put before him; and if he can evolve anything which will satisfy him and satisfy us, we shall be profoundly grateful.

Mr. David Adams: Might I just make it a little more clear to hon. Members opposite that when one uses the term "trade union rates," one means such terms as have been agreed upon by the trade unions and the employers in the area concerned? It is a specific agreement which has been entered into.

Sir S. Reed: The hon. Member has entirely overlooked the wording of the Amendment:
where no such rates exist in the district, the trade union rates recognised in the nearest comparable area.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Colonel Ponsonby) has pointed out that such an area might be 1,000 miles away; and there might be no effective trade union organisation there, although there might be one which was slowly developing.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. George Hall: There is no difference of opinion as to the difficulty of my task in attempting to define the "standard rates" referred to in the Bill. I think that those responsible for drafting the Bill attempted to find a very easy way out, because this term was lifted out of the 1929 Act. Under that Act, it has worked, for good or ill, from the time that the Act was passed up to the present. Hon. Members have recognised the difficulty of relating conditions in the Colonies with conditions in this country; but, at the same time, it has been recognised that something must be done to safeguard the wages of the workpeople who will be employed on schemes to be carried out by means of moneys provided under this


Bill. There is a difficulty in finding the right words, and I am afraid that we have not got the right words in the Amendment. In some Colonies trade unions do not exist, and the very widely varying conditions in Colonies must always be remembered. It is difficult to find exactly comparable areas for many Colonies. One might ask what is the nearest comparable area to St. Helena, or to Hong Kong. In the latter case, it would be China. We must not consider that wage conditions which prevail in certain parts of China should prevail in Hong Kong.

Mr. David Adams: Are there no trade unions in Hong Kong?

Mr. Hall: There are some trade unions there. The officers of the Government are very sympathetic to the purposes of this Amendment. Again, I would invite the co-operation of hon. Members who have taken part in the discussion, and, with their help, we will endeavour to find suitable words to meet the points which have been made in the Debate. I hope that the Amendment will be withdrawn.

5.51 p.m.

Mr. Price: I do not feel wedded to the words of this Amendment at all, and I think it might be possible to find something more suitable. Where there are trade unions, is it not obvious that the standard rate should be the rate fixed by the employers and the trade unions? Where there are no trade unions, I should think it would be possible to come to some understanding that wages should be fixed by negotiation with the representatives of the Colonial Government. That, I think, would be a certain safeguard. Then any complaints could be raised in this House. It would be giving the necessary public control which we want in those very backward areas where no trade unions exist.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. Riley: I beg to move, in page 2, line 17, to leave out from "works," to the end of line 22, and to insert:
(3) Any scheme made under this Section shall provide that any increase in values directly attributable to the scheme shall inure to the colony in respect of which the scheme is made.
The only difference between the wording of the Amendment and that of the

Bill is that the Bill states that the Colony in respect of which any scheme is made should
participate in any increase in values directly attributable to the scheme,
while our Amendment provides that the increase shall "inure" to the benefit of the Colony. That seems a small difference, but it is a principle of some importance. As the Clause stands, there seems to be some doubt as to what proportion of any increased values will go to the Colony. I suggest that the wording of the Amendment would be more effective, as it makes it quite clear that any increase in values attributable to the scheme shall inure to the Colony.

5.55 p.m.

Sir P. Hannon: Suppose that a scheme is promoted, in any part of the Colonial Empire, upon which public money, voted by Parliament, has been expended, and that the value of property adjacent to that scheme is enhanced, and that private enterprise begins to operate on that property. Is it proposed, under the Amendment, that private enterprise is to be discouraged from such development?

5.56 p.m.

Mr. Riley: That applies as much to the Clause as to the Amendment, as the same principle is contained in both. The Clause says that the Secretary of State
shall take into account the desirability of securing so far as possible that the colony in respect of which the scheme is made shall participate in any increase in values directly attributable to the scheme.
The only difference between that and our Amendment is that the Amendment provides that the benefit of such an increase in values shall inure directly to the Colony, and not be divided.

5.57 p.m.

Mr. Ammon: This is a case in which, perhaps, we shall have to call in the aid of the Attorney-General, because there may be some difference of opinion as to the distinction between "participate" and "inure." I imagine that the object of the Amendment is to provide that the whole of any such increase in land values, instead of going into private pockets, as happens now, shall inure to the Colony itself—in short, it is an endeavour to avoid what we have been suffering from for many years in more sophisticated kinds of society. As the hon. and gallant


Member for Sevenoaks (Colonel Ponsonby) may remember, in some parts of Africa the land cannot be abrogated from the people; the chiefs, or emirs, are the custodians of the land, and any improvement goes into the common stock. This is a matter, however, on which I think we need a legal mind.

5.58 p.m.

Sir S. Reed: I want to give my entire support to the principle of the Amendment. I think there is not a great deal of difference in principle between the wording of the Bill and that of the Amendment; but the wording of the Bill is too wishy-washy, and not strong enough. I want the whole benefit to go to the community, and not to private individuals. Whether the word "inure" is the right word, in the legal sense, I do not know; but I sincerely hope that the Minister will accept the principle that there should be something very much stronger than the language of the Bill, in order to secure that the community, and not private individuals, should benefit from the spending of public moneys under this Bill.

5.59 p.m.

Mr. Creech Jones: The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed) has very admirably expressed what was in the minds of those Members who are responsible for this Amendment. We feel that if public money, provided by this House, is spent on schemes of development, and if the effect of opening out territories is the creation of improved values, those values, instead of going to private individuals, should obviously go into the coffers of the community concerned. There is, for instance, a proposition that certain parts of the hinterland in British Guiana should be opened out; that some of the surplus population of the West Indies, or, say, some of the Jewish people, should colonise some of those parts. Suggestions have been made that certain public works, roads and suchlike, should be cut, with a view to opening out that hinterland. It seems a reasonable proposition that if, by social effort, land which is at present completely valueless assumes a very real value, some, at least, of that value, if not the whole of it, should go to the coffers of the Treasury concerned. If the State is spending money on irrigation works, on sinking wells, for better production, on improved schemes in con-

nection with afforestation or soil erosion, it seems reasonable to suggest that the newly-created values should enrich the Colony, rather than individuals whose own possessions happen to be near those works. It is because the Sub-section in the Bill scarcely goes far enough in this respect that we ask that it shall be strengthened.

6.1 p.m.

Mr. Price: I would like to add a few words to emphasise the desirability of some steps being taken to ensure that public values created by these schemes should go to the people. The question is how best this can be done, and it seems to me that by strengthening the Clause in the way proposed we shall put some kind of moral obligation on the Governor of a Colony to enact legislation to secure this end. Some steps in the direction of the taxation of land values or unearned increment duty, or something like that, might possibly secure the desired end. Perhaps the Attorney-General would consider how this could possibly be done. If he cannot specify exactly what measures ought to be taken—and I am prepared to agree that in a Bill of this kind it would be hard to find the particular words—I would suggest that a moral obligation on the Colony to take steps in the direction indicated is desirable, and there is a great deal to be said for strengthening the Clause.

6.2 p.m.

Sir Francis Fremantle: I only want to add my word in support of the principle of the Amendment from the point of view of the garden city movement, with which I have been associated a good deal in this House for over 20 years. This movement is based on the idea that if you are to develop a town, township, village or any settlement, you can, by taking proper steps beforehand, see that you do not get competition in values into private hands, as it is likely to be disastrous to any future development. It would not matter so much if the increment in value remained in private hands; what matters is that, as development ensues, so the public needs develop in the way of public buildings, roads or utility societies of one kind or another. We have seen the possibility of doing this thing properly by the actual development of two garden cities in this country, on lines where the whole possession of the


land is in the hands of the community. In this case it has been a private company that has developed it, by the terms of its charter, for the public interest. The widening of roads in London is almost an impossible achievement because of these land values, whereas in garden cities these developments are all provided for. This kind of shadowy Amendment introduces a principle which may be valuable.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: I would like to support the Amendment, and there is support for the principle of it in the Town and Country Planning Act. Local authorities have actually collected betterment from private individuals as a result of public expenditure. That principle is a very just one. The presence and the expenditure of the community are responsible for the increase in ground values. In the Colonial Empire, where the expenditure is to be largely found by this Government, it is the more necessary that the communities concerned should see that in their expenditure and development works the rising values do not merely pass, as occurs in this country, into private hands among persons who may have taken no steps whatever to contribute to these values. The local authorities therefore ought to have the full benefit of any public expenditure which creates additional values.

6.6 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): On this Amendment, as on the earlier ones, the unanimity of intention is as well as may be complete, and we are debating about how far that intention is carried into effect by the words, and how far the words can be improved. The trouble about this Amendment is that it is so rigid that it would be unworkable. It makes it mandatory that
any scheme made under this Section shall provide that any increase in values directly attributable to the scheme shall inure to the colony in respect of which the scheme is made.
One hon. Gentleman referred to an irrigation scheme. Suppose you have an irrigation scheme over a fairly wide area, that inevitably inures to the benefit of the inhabitants who live in the area and no doubt increases the value of their land, should there be any question of their

selling it. No doubt under an irrigation scheme it is very often normal to take a contribution from the cultivators who benefit by the scheme for the water which they would not otherwise get. That is a perfectly fair proposal, but no one could say that any increase in values directly attributable to the schemes would inure to the colony unless you imposed a charge on the cultivators for the full increased value of their plots which they cultivate. I think that hon. Gentlemen will see that this Amendment really will be far too rigid and will simply mean that the thing will not work at all. The words in the Bill—and this is a little interesting—are taken from the 1929 Act. An Amendment was moved to the Bill as introduced raising exactly the point which all who have spoken to-day have raised, and everybody's intention was just the same then as it is now, and this was arrived at as an agreed form of words between those interested in this problem and those in charge of the Bill, who were also interested in the problem. I do not think it is quite fair to say that it is washy or ineffective. It gives an elasticity which the Amendment does not give, and I have tried to suggest to the Committee that the Amendment is so rigid that it just would not work. It enjoins the Secretary of State to
take into account the desirability of securing so far as possible that the Colony in respect of which the scheme is made shall participate.
You have not only to take into account, but to see as far as possible that the object which we all have at heart is attained. There was some reference to the definition of "inure." I think that "inure" would mean that you would have to see that the Colony got the whole of the interest, which I think in some cases would be quite impossible. There might be an increase of value to cultivators and it might be reasonable not to try and clear off every increase by imposing taxes on them.

Mr. Price: Has not the Attorney-General referred to the possibility of tribes being benefited by irrigation schemes? If this was carried through, the Government would have to take steps to take all increased values away from the natives.

The Attorney-General: That is my point. The Amendment is really too rigid, but I can give the Committee the


assurance that both the Secretary of State and the Treasury will keep this matter in mind when schemes come up for approval. They appreciate the great importance of ensuring, as far as possible in the wording of the Bill, the matters which hon. Gentlemen have in mind, and I hope that with that explanation they will see their way not to press the Amendment.

Mr. Riley: I think that the Attorney-General has convinced us that the Government's words are wiser than those which I have suggested, and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. Riley: I beg to move, in page 2, line 23, to leave out Sub-section (3).
The Sub-section says:
Any sums received by the Secretary of State by way of interest on or repayment of the principal of any loan made in pursuance of any scheme under this section shall be paid into the Exchequer.
That, in our view, is an unnecessary provision. Money is provided under the Bill for carrying out schemes for the draining and development of the Colonies, and we move the elimination of the Subsection because it is rather a mean thing to suggest that, if as a result of loans made for these schemes, repayments are made, the interest on loans should go back to the Treasury rather than to the development fund. As we see it, without this Sub-section payment of such loans or interest on loans would accrue to the fund. For that reason we move the Amendment.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. Creech Jones: I support the Amendment, because I would like my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to make a little clearer the intention of the Bill so far as the total amount available under it is concerned. In an earlier part of the Bill it is pointed out that sums to be so paid for the purposes of any other scheme shall not, in the aggregate, exceed £5,000,000 in any financial year. In the White Paper, which was published by the former Secretary of State in explanation of the Colonial policy embodied in the Bill, some reference is made to the fact that Parliament may in any year increase the amount available for grants and loans beyond the sum of £5,000,000.

It is proposed by the Amendment that the Sub-section under which sums are received back by the Secretary of State should be deleted, in order that if there are any moneys received in respect of interest on loans and advances, that money, instead of going back to the Treasury, can be allowed to accumulate to the fund so as to be available over and above the £5,000,000 which it is proposed that Parliament should make available year by year.
It is because there is some confusion in my own mind as to the intention of the Bill that I support the Amendment. If the Bill strictly limits the amount available in any one year to £5,000,000, it seems to be inconsistent with the declaration in the White Paper. I suggest that if there should be repayment of principal in respect of loans, or interest received on loans made, that money should also be made available in addition to the £5,000,000 which is visualised in the Bill. I would ask the Under-Secretary what it is precisely that the Colonial Secretary has in mind.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Ammon: May I follow up the point which has been put by carrying it a little further? As I read the Bill, there is a maximum amount of £5,000,000 which can be paid out, but there is no guarantee that that amount need be expended. It seems that this is very much the same position as that in which a Government Department brings money into its Budget under certain headings and an amount of money is allocated to Vote A, but is not expended, and it is not possible to transfer that to Vote 8. For various reasons grants might be held up and money might not be expended, so that at the end of 12 months, instead of having money in reserve, they would not get the money formerly voted. Perhaps the Under-Secretary can tell us whether it will be possible to come to the House and get permission to spend the money. If so, I suggest that that would not be possible without another Act of Parliament. It is particularly important during war years to remember that it might be well to expend money as a long-range investment and for the good of the economic position of the Colonies. If people are to be hindered in the expenditure of money voted and they cannot hold it over


from year to year, it seems that it will be a considerable obstacle to getting the maximum amount of benefit out of the Bill. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us, as regards money not expended, whether it will be possible to assume control of it again without an Act of Parliament involving a good deal of unnecessary and cumbrous machinery.

6.22 p.m.

Sir Annesley Somerville: This is a point which came up with regard to the Empire Settlement Act. That Act of 1924 provided a sum of £3,000,000 a year to be spent in the encouragement of Empire settlement. As a matter of fact, not one-seventh, possibly not one-tenth, of the amount that could have been spent was spent under that Act. Here we have much the same point. An amount of £5,000,000 a year is provided by this Bill for the development of the Colonies. The matter depends largely on the spirit and enterprise with which this money is spent. If there is a really vigorous intention and purpose to provide the necessary development, then there will be very small balances at the end of each year. If not, there will be large balances, and they will, under the Bill as drafted, come back to the Treasury. I can quite understand the anxiety of those who wish to see a Bill made really useful and see that the money should be fully and usefully spent. I think it would be well that there should be expenditure of this money. If there was a possibility that the money would not be spent and could be recovered for future years, it would be all to the good. Perhaps the Minister will say a word of explanation.

6.24 p.m.

Sir S. Reed: We have reached such a happy stage of unanimity on this Bill that I hope it will not be broken now, but I find it hard to accept the Amendment in the form in which it stands. If this Amendment was designed to secure what the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) has in the back of his mind—the creation of a pool which would be available for development over and above £5,000,000 a year—I think we should be in agreement, but as it stands the elimination of the Sub-section would mean that in exceptional cases, in the application of these funds, a recipient Colony attaining

a high measure of prosperity without hindering development would evade interest on sinking-fund charges. If I understood the hon. Member for North Camber well (Mr. Ammon), his point is entirely different. His point is the doctrine of the lapsed grant, and I think that in his own experience he will agree that it is the most costly, obstructive, wasteful and disastrous policy ever adopted by any financial authority in the history of the world. Millions of money have been wasted on public works through this doctrine of the lapsed grant. However, we will leave it to the Minister to crystallize our general view into such proposals as may commend themselves to him and his colleague on the intermediate stage of this Measure.

6.27 p.m.

Mr. George Hall: Here again I am afraid I must part company with my hon. Friends, for the Amendment must be resisted. The purpose of the Bill is to provide an annual expenditure of £5,000,000 a year on development and welfare and £500,000 upon research, for 10 years, making a total amount of £5,500,000. It is not a question of a fund into which £5,000,000 a year is to be paid. It is for purposes of development, welfare and research, and it is the intention of the Colonial Office when times become normal to try and ensure that an annual sum of this kind will be a spur to the Colonies to use up the amount of money which is available. I can see the point which has been put by my hon. Friends. The same point was put by the hon. Member for Was all (Sir G. Schuster) on the Second Reading. It was that where loans are granted interest and repayment on capital shall add to the expenditure of the year in which the amount is to be paid. Whilst it is the intention of the Colonial Office to give certain loans, I think the loans will be small in proportion to the amount of grants which will be given. That, of course, does not alter the principle which my hon. Friends have in mind. They will remember that in the White Paper, in the statement by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, it is clearly pointed out that if at any time it is discovered that sums mentioned in the Bill are inadequate for the purposes intended, we shall have to come to the House to increase the amounts beyond those specified in the


Bill. I think my hon. Friends can take it that there will be little hesitation in coining to the House for any increases which can be usefully spent. It must be remembered that in normal years the full amount will be spent—

Mr. Riley: Would it not be much easier, therefore, if, through this Amendment, repayment of any loan or interest upon loans accrued to the fund for development, thereby avoiding coming to the House for additional amounts?

Mr. Hall: I am not an expert on Parliamentary procedure, but I would point out that this is not a fund in the sense that you can hold balances over from one year to another. It is an annual grant, which will be voted to meet expenditure which has been agreed upon in the Colonies. That is one reason why we cannot accept the Amendment, and another reason is that in its present form it will act as an incentive to the Colonies to use up the amount of money which is available. £5,000,000 a year is a sub-stantial sum; with the addition of the £500,000 it will mean in 10 years an amount of £55,000,000. I hope that we are not going to have any division of opinion now and that the explanation I have given will be considered satisfactory.

Mr. David Adams: I am not clear after the explanation of the Under-Secretary of State. It is rather a remarkable Sub-section. It says:
Any sums received by the Secretary of State by way of interest on or repayment of the principal of any loan made in pursuance of any scheme under this Section shall be paid into the Exchequer.
We are not making a loan.

Mr. Hall: The Bill also provides for a loan.

Mr. Adams: I understand that, but the Colonies may be induced to get on with the expenditure. It is a remarkable position. In the Bill it is provided that the principal on large sums which are owing is to be remitted to the various Colonies concerned, while the Sub-section says that any moneys received by way of loans must be remitted to the Treasury. There seems to be a contradiction.

6.35 p.m.

Sir Robert Tasker: I want to put one point to the Under-Secretary of State. I want to know what provision

is being made to safeguard the situation in which a sum of money granted for a specific purpose has not been spent, or only a small proportion of it, during the year and the Colony decides to get rid of it and prevent it going back to the Treasury. What is there to safeguard such a position? In the War Office you get a block grant, and the principle there is never to return any money to the Treasury.

Mr. Hall: The money will be given for schemes approved by the Secretary of State and the Treasury. The scheme may take three or four years to complete. An estimate will be made each year of the approximate expenditure which is likely to accrue. If a scheme costing £250,000 takes three years to complete and £50,000 is spent in the first year and £100,000 in the next two years, the Treasury will find the money which is likely to be spent in each year. There will be no inducement to spend more than the estimated expenditure for one year, and there will be very little money left over and accruing to the Treasury because the Treasury is finding the money as it is spent each year.

6.35 p.m.

Sir S. Reed: The point is this. You make a grant of £100,000 which it is estimated will be spent in that year, but owing to unforeseen difficulties only £60,000 is spent wisely and well. What is going to happen to the other £40,000? Is that going to the Treasury or to remain at the disposal of the Colony concerned? The point is rather important, because if it is to return to the Treasury there is an irresistible temptation on the party concerned to rush into wasteful expenditure in order to get rid of the money so that there shall be nothing left to revert to the Treasury. It is the lapsed grant again. What we wish is that when the money is voted it shall be a definite and complete vote, and that if there are delays in carrying out the work the money shall not lapse but remain at the disposal of the authority whose work has been sanctioned.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Relief in respect of certain loans.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

6.38 p.m.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: While I agree that it is wise of the Government to remit altogether a number of debts which are in prospect of being burdensome to the various Colonies and are not likely to be ever repaid, there are two cases where I think a little more consideration might be given. Each of these is a case of money remitted in respect of Mandated Territories. I wonder whether the Government have considered the advisability of retaining this at any rate as a book debt, because at some date there may have to be a revision of the position of a Mandated Territory. There is the case of Transjordania. It is obviously the intention of the Government and the desire of hon. Members that Transjordania should become an independent State as soon as possible. When that time arrives there will have to be a readjustment of finance, and it may be desirable to keep clearly on the books this debt which represents the money spent by this country on behalf of the Mandated Territory so that it may be taken into account when the final settlement is made. In the other case of Tanganyika, there may be some alteration in the future in the position of that territory, and it is desirable, therefore, that the money expended by this country on behalf of the Mandated Territory should remain, although it may not be pressed as a debt, as a charge which is due.

Mr. George Hall: The point of the hon. Member was considered by the Colonial Office and the Treasury at the time it was agreed that these provisions should be made. The difficulty is to make any distinction between Colonies and Protectorates and Mandated Territories, but I will again call my right hon. Friend's attention to the point made by the hon. Member.
Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported, without Amendment.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. George Hall: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
It has fallen to me to move the Third Reading of a Bill which was introduced into the House by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. Hon. Members who spoke in the Debate on the Second Reading recognised the extent to which this Bill and the policy of enlarged Colonial development to which it proposes to give effect, were the creation of my right hon. Friend and the result of his untiring work as Secretary of State for the Colonies. It was, I feel, most fitting that his final act on behalf of the Colonial Empire should have been to take through its Second Reading a Bill concerned not with one Colony or one group of Colonies but a Bill which affects the whole of the Colonial Empire and which, in its far-reaching, and progressive aims, is characteristic of the spirit which has marked his distinguished administration at the Colonial Office. This legislation is likely to be regarded in the future as a major landmark in Colonial history. It will always be associated, and rightly associated, with the name of my right hon. Friend.
For my part I was greatly impressed by the way in which the Bill has been received by the House. The Debate on the Second Reading took place on a day when the news from France and Belgium was increasingly grave and when there was growing anxiety for the fate of the British and Allied Armies in contact with the enemy. That in those circumstances hon. Members not only welcomed the Bill but welcomed it with useful and constructive criticism has, I am certain, been a source of great encouragement throughout the Colonial Empire. The peoples of the Colonies have pledged themselves loyally to our common cause in the struggle for freedom. That this House during this crisis was able to view with sympathy and understanding proposals for assisting the ordinary and peaceful development of the Colonies will not be forgotten in the days that lie ahead. The reception given to the Bill was a great encouragement to my Noble Friend and myself in taking up our new responsibilities at the Colonial Office. In the course of the Debate points were made and suggestions offered on various aspects


of Colonial development. To these points we shall give our close attention.
We realise that the Bill itself is only a first step towards making effective the new policy of Colonial development, and that the successful execution of that policy depends on a proper use being made of the opportunities created by the Bill. We welcome the interest shown by hon. Members in the problems which confront us and shall look forward with confidence to the continued support and helpful criticism of hon. Members in our efforts to fulfil the purpose of the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health said in his speech on the Second Reading that it was the intention of the Government to proceed with a scheme of Colonial development, in spite of the war, as rapidly as war-time conditions allow. That statement was, I believe, generally welcomed in the House and it remains a true statement of our policy. It would, however, be useless to pretend that the qualification "as rapidly as war-time conditions allow" has not been made very much more important by the events of the last few weeks. It is now the unanimous resolve of the Government and of the country that until the great danger which threatens us is past purposes of war value must have the first call on the whole of our resources, whether in men or material or money. It must follow that there will be many desirable schemes of Colonial development which cannot immediately be undertaken, although this will not debar us from providing funds for urgent schemes which can be undertaken with purely local resources in men and material and without detriment to the war effort. The principle that men must not be diverted from war activities has a very special application to a small but highly important part of the whole scheme.
It was announced in the statement of policy issued on 20th February that two committees would be set up, a Colonial Development and Welfare Advisory Committee and a Colonial Research Advisory Committee, and, although those committees would have no statutory status or rights, it was the intention that schemes would normally be referred for consideration to the appropriate committee. In present conditions it is unhappily very unlikely that men of the first-class ability we need on those committees could, or should, find the necessary time to devote

to such work, and the establishment of the committees may have to be deferred until a time of less acute emergency. An instance of this particular difficulty is provided by the recent appointment, to be Joint Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Agriculture, of Lord Moyne who, as the House was informed, was to have been the Chairman of the Development and Welfare Committee. If the general position is still the same when the Bill is passed, we should propose for the time being to dispense with the machinery of the committees; that is, the powers proposed to be vested in the Treasury and the Secretary of State to make schemes will be exercised on their own responsibility without the advice of those special committees.
Some hon. Members who, in the Debate on the Second Reading, expressed apprehension that the machinery proposed would cause undue delay, may perhaps welcome such revised procedure, because it will make more rapid decisions possible, and, in a time of emergency, it may well be an advantage to be able to take action with the minimum of delay, particularly if opportunity offers of using the new powers to promote development having immediate war value as well as ultimate colonial benefit. Nevertheless, it remains our belief that in normal times the assistance of advisory committees, such as those proposed, would be most valuable, and they will be set up as soon as circumstances permit.
One of the most important features of the new development policy is its insistence on planned development, and the functions of the advisory committees, when they are appointed, will be to consider not only detailed schemes, but also comprehensive development programmes which the Colonial Governments have been asked to submit. But we must recognise that for the present there will be little opportunity in the Colonies for the preparation of long-term programmes. Their efforts as well as ours are concentrated on winning the war. Although the majority of Colonies are remote from the present scene of military operations, several of them have now been brought into the area of conflict, and they have had to make their preparations accordingly. In all the Colonies, to a greater or lesser extent, civilian staffs have been diverted to military or other special


duties. All of them, as administrations, are striving to secure the increased production of raw materials required for war purposes, and of foodstuffs required for local consumption. In these conditions the maintenance of many normal services is, in itself, a task of considerable difficulty. Nowhere will it be easy, and in most Colonies it will be impossible, as long as the war continues, to give that close attention to social and economic planning which is an essential preliminary to the kind of development we envisage under the terms of this Bill.
Apart, therefore, from the fact that material and personnel for the execution of new schemes will not be readily available, the preparation of many schemes which are not of war value must itself be delayed, because many Colonial Governments with their depleted staffs and more urgent preoccupations will not have the time to devote to such work. We must expect, for the present, only to be able to make use of the new provisions for urgent purposes for the financing of individual schemes which will assist in the war effort, or which can be carried out with local resources without detriment to the war effort. The broad flow of planned development, covering the whole economy of each territory and related to all its needs, must await the peace. The ready response of the Colonial Government to the difficulties of giving full effect to the policy of development outlined in the White Paper may be illustrated by a Resolution which has just been passed by the Legislative Council of Grenada in the Windward Islands:
The Council, while deeply appreciative of the spirit which has actuated the Government to pursue its decision to devote Imperial funds to the betterment of social and economic conditions in the West Indies and other parts of the Colonial Empire, feel that the present time is not one in which His Majesty's loyal people of the Colonies would desire to have their Motherland concerned with their domestic difficulties which however great are insignificant when contrasted with the mighty and urgent task of prosecuting the war to victory.
The Resolution goes on to say that the people of Grenada would be made happier by the knowledge that their many needs, so generously recognised by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, will receive the attention that they have been promised at the conclusion of the war, to which they feel that the people of Great Britain should now be free to devote every

available resource of money and man power. My Noble Friend has asked the Governor of the Windward Islands to convey to the Legislative Council an expression of his warm appreciation of the spirit of sacrifice reflected in their message.
Notwithstanding all the difficulties which I have referred to in the course of my remarks, my Noble Friend will endeavour to fill the post of Comptroller of the West India Welfare Fund, and, at any rate, some of his advisory staff, as recommended by the West India Royal Commission, so that these officers can make contact with the West Indian Governors and carry out the preliminary surveys which will be necessary before a comprehensive scheme' can be prepared. In conclusion I would like to say this. The Government attach a high value to this Bill, even for the sake of what can be accomplished under present conditions, and commend it to the House for its Third Reading.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. Ammon: Although the House is not familiar in these days with party divisions, I think it well that some word of appreciation should be given to the Minister for the Bill which he has successfully piloted through this evening. We hope he may take it as a good augury of his first appearance in his new position. Although he took up his work from the right hon. Gentleman, who may be responsible for it, the Minister has piloted it through successfully, and it has the general approval of the House as a whole. It will be remembered that in the Second Reading Debate my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) said this Bill was stillborn. I think he even used the phrase that it was mere humbug to go on with it under present conditions. Therefore, we are most relieved to hear the hon. Gentleman say that it is the intention of his chief, and of his Department, and of himself, to expedite as fast as they can the implementation of this Bill. He has, however, entered several caveats, such as the war, which makes it doubtful how much money will be spent. We hope it will not be an excuse for allowing this Bill to die of emaciation, or for the Treasury to strangle it in its infancy.
I think the Minister is entitled to spend up to £5,000,000 a year, but there is no guarantee that that money will be expended. The 10 years period commences, I think, from now, and, no doubt, a considerable number of schemes may be ruled out. Even in war years, I suggest, it might be worth while taking a long-range view which will be both economical for our Colonies and will promote good will in the relationship between the Empire. It seems to me that money is mostly spent in bolstering up bankrupt concerns which may have very little value, rather than putting it into going concerns, such as we are doing in Palestine. In Colonies, such as Nigeria, so few of us, even in this House, realise that outside India it is the largest dependency we have. It has something like 22,000,000 people. To a certain extent one might say it will never be a white man's country, but it is our duty, and a trust has been laid upon us, to develop that country which is potentially capable of very great development for the benefit of the people themselves.
One thing which struck those of us who were there less than two years ago, was that this country could be very much richer in itself if its own internal riches and productivity were encouraged. There is a vast difference between the North and South. We found that the North has abundance of meat, and the South has practically none. The meat which travels on the hoof dies before it reaches the South, while it is found that the North can do with food and agricultural products from the South. Suggestions were made, and were welcomed, that an abattoir with a refrigerating plant might be installed at Illorin to meet this problem. I suggest that it is expenditure of that kind which is far more desirable, and I hope that the Minister will bear in mind when he comes to deal with other work that there are something like 1,000,000 lepers in Nigeria. There are people who say that given sufficient money they could deal with these and probably clear up the disease in a measurable time. One of the finest testimonies we can have to our democratic system is that amidst all our present worries and perplexities this House can discuss such a Bill. It is an indication of the unseen but very powerful threads that bind the Empire together.
I take this opportunity on behalf of all Members to congratulate the Under-Secretary and to hope that he will use every opportunity, even during the war, to see that this Bill is implemented to its utmost for the development of the Empire, so that when we return to more normal ways we shall find a large volume of good will and the possibilities of the more rapid development of those countries of which we are the custodians.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Evans: I fully appreciate the arguments put forward by the Under-Secretary in defending the reasons why we cannot expect this Bill to be put into operation with the full significance which we attached to it when we saw it first. There are two words of caution, however, that I would like to utter. It is true that war conditions have altered matters very materially and are bound to affect the putting into operation of this Bill. War conditions in many respects, however, point out and emphasise the importance of the policy which this Bill represents. There are to-day in our Colonies vast resources of immediate war value which could be made available for use at once if assistance could be given for their development. Schemes such as aerodromes and through communications would also be of value at this time. In these days, when the war spreads so rapidly that we do not know where we shall have to go next, assistance in these directions is important. There are, too, vast resources of copper and other materials in the Colonies which with the aid of improved communications might render valuable aid quickly.
The other word of caution I want to say is that I hope the fact that this Bill will have to be postponed in many directions will not be taken as justification for a suggestion made on Second Reading that this Bill is really nothing but eye-wash. I accept to the full the expressions of sincerity which have been put forward by the Government, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary would not make them unless he were satisfied that this Bill represents the policy of the Imperial Government. I hope that it will be made known throughout the Colonies that it represents the determined and decided view of the Government. There has been a tendency in some


Colonies to regard what I may call the Downing Street side of Imperial affairs as a sort of closed thing which is revealed only to a few of the chosen. Not only the European populations, but the native populations are taking an increasing interest in the administration of the countries in which they live. When, therefore, we have something good to tell them let us tell it them. It is of the utmost importance that it should go forth to both Europeans and natives in the Colonies that this Bill represents the deliberate and decided policy of His Majesty's Government. They should know that, even although by reason of war conditions there may be some delay in implementing all the pledges which it involves, the home Government, in combination with the Colonial Governments, are determined to do what they can for the economic development of the Colonies and to improve the conditions of the natives, and to do it now in order to encourage still further that fine spirit, which has been shown in so many of our Colonies since the war broke out, of anxiety to come to the assistance of the home country and the Empire.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. Creech Jones: I would like to express my pleasure at the fact that the former Secretary of State for the Colonies hammered out and produced a Bill so comprehensive and constructive as this. I think the House appreciates sincerely the value of his work on this Bill at the Colonial Office, and is conscious that it must be a disappointment to him that he has not remained in office while the Bill was being put on the Statute Book. It is one of the most imaginative and constructive pieces of work which has been done in the history of our Colonial Empire. I hope that the new Ministers will approach the Bill in that spirit. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has a great opportunity, and I have every confidence that he and the Secretary of State will do everything in their power to make this Bill a first-class constructive measure. I hope that the difficulties through which we are going because of the war will not lead to any lack of preparation and that every opportunity will be seized to prepare the ground so that the Bill can be put into full operation at the earliest opportunity.

I hope, too, that when the Secretary of State is selecting the advisory committees he will get the best possible men available and that they will be persons of liberal and progressive mind.
In the development of these schemes I trust we may have the full co-operation of the people in the Colonies. It would be a mistake if there were anything in the nature of dictatorship from this end. We want the Colonies to have a sense of responsibility. I hope, therefore, that when the schemes are under consideration by the Colonial Governments they will consult the people who are most concerned in them before they are finally shaped. I would also urge that the Colonies should develop a sense of self-reliance. It would be a pity if they took the view that they can rely over much on the assistance of the Imperial Treasury. I hope that what has been suggested in respect of taxation schemes will be fulfilled and that there will be an equitable direct form of taxation so that those who can best contribute to the well-being of their respective territories will be called upon to do so more than has been the custom in the past. I congratulate the Colonial Office on the production of this Bill. It is a big, comprehensive and constructive Measure, and I hope that it will be a landmark in the development of the British Colonial Empire.

7.9 p.m.

Mr. Loftus: Perhaps a voice may be raised on this side to welcome the Bill. I welcome it heartily. The Bill provides for the development of our Colonial Empire by public money. So far the development has been left to private enterprise. While it has accomplished much, it has also in its haste achieved a great deal of evil. We see, for instance, soil erosion throughout the world. I welcome the Bill, not only because it will be a benefit to the Colonies and because it will be a credit to the Empire and to this Parliament, but because I hope that it will be a wider benefit in that the money and advice provided in it will check that terrible process of soil erosion. It is going on throughout the Colonial and Dominion Empire and it carries with it a great threat to the future of the human race in many parts of the world. From that point of view as well as from any others I heartily welcome the Bill.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: As I had not an opportunity of addressing the House on the Second Reading, may I on this occasion offer my congratulations to the present Minister of Health on the admirable work represented by this Bill and also to the Under-Secretary on the manner in which he has discharged the duties which have fallen to his lot during the Committee and Third Reading stages. One recognises that this Measure is due to the fact that Parliament has—only recently—awakened to its responsibility in relation to the Colonial Empire. That, let us remember, is an Empire of over 60,000,000 souls which, up to the arrival of the late Colonial Secretary, had received the smallest possible consideration from Parliament. Now we have laid the foundations of what should develop into one of the most magnificent efforts associated with the Empire.
Had it been possible to divide the money which is to be expended under this Bill, between development and welfare, that would have been the desirable course. The necessities that have arisen have not been due to disabilities under which white populations and white settlers have suffered. Rather they have arisen from the disabilities which the coloured races under our control have suffered for so many years past. As we cannot divide this money in the way I have suggested, it will be left to the energy of the Colonial Office and the local Colonial Governors to see that the improvement of the welfare of the native populations receives that consideration which is due to such an important question. The amounts which are voted by this Bill are small but they represent a beginning.
I deprecated the observation of the Under-Secretary to the effect that it might not be possible to expend this amount in the time indicated. If the Colonial Office desires, as I am sure it does desire, to bring about a real, steady and unquestioned improvement in the conditions of the coloured races under our control there is no question about the fact that this amount and more than this amount could be expended in the course of the next ten years. The sum is small and is distributed over a vast population. I am disappointed that the Bill does not contain any provision for setting up in the Colonies in which this money is to be expended, an adequate and equitable

system of direct taxation on the lines suggested in one of our Amendments which was not called during the Committee stage. The present situation in that respect is one which ought to be ended. Whether it can be ended by this Bill or not, I do not know, but I hope that the Under-Secretary and his Noble Friend will give this aspect of the matter their attention. In the White Paper explaining the purpose of the Government and setting out a statement of policy, it is said that in some territories larger revenues could be raised, without injustice, by an adjustment of taxation.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is going outside the scope of the Bill in seeking to deal with taxation.

Mr. Adams: May I then merely express the hope that this aspect of the subject, which I think has been mentioned in Debate, will receive the consideration of the Colonial Office? With those observations, I desire to offer my congratulations to those immediately concerned on their initiative and to the Government for having, in these times, introduced so comprehensive and, as I hope it will prove, so valuable and uplifting a Measure for the benefit of the Colonial Empire.
Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put and agreed to.
Bill read the Third time, and passed.

REMISSION OF RATES (LONDON) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

7.15 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill, for which I now ask a Second reading, is introduced in accordance with a promise given by the late Solicitor-General on 30th April. In the Debate on the Rating and Valuation Postponement Bill, attention was drawn to the greater rigidity of the law in London concerning interim re-valuation and the power of rate remission, compared with the corresponding law in the provinces, and suggestions were then made for amendments of the law to mitigate hardships, particularly those caused by the war, to certain classes of ratepayers. The


House will be aware that the Government gave careful consideration to these matters and took first-hand evidence from bodies representing various parties particularly interested in this question and from experienced officials of local authorities. The Bill is designed to amend, for the period during which abnormal conditions may be expected to prevail, the London provisions governing the procedure for the remission of rates and to bring the Metropolitan law on this point into accord with that which has been operating in the provinces since 1925. It, therefore, makes applicable to London the provisions contained in Section 2 (4) of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, which runs as follows:
A rating authority shall have power to reduce or remit the payment of any general rate on account of the poverty of any person liable to the payment thereof.
This Bill, therefore, gives the London rating authorities the discretion which is already enjoyed by the provincial authorities and has been enjoyed by them for 15 years without, as far as the Government are aware, any ground for criticism of the way in which they have administered it. It will enable the London ratepayer who, being unable to meet his rate liabilities from circumstances beyond his control and not by wilful refusal or culpable neglect, might expect to obtain remission or reduction from the justices on that account, to put his case before the rating authority. If he satisfies the rating authority, that authority will be empowered to grant a remission or rebate without the ratepayer having to appear in person before the justices. It is hoped that, in this way, a real hardship to certain ratepayers may be mitigated. These ratepayers are not in the class of rate defaulters in normal times, but there are certain circumstances now brought about by the war which apply specially to them. We think it is desirable in this way to give them an advantage already enjoyed in the provinces and to give the London rating authorities that same power which authorities in the provinces have exercised, and have administered well.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. Ammon: In welcoming this Bill, I would note, as a matter of melancholy memory, that the promise to introduce it was made on 30th April by the late Sir Terence O'Connor.

We are now considering the fulfilment of the promise which he then made. It is also worth pointing out that we are now repealing an Act which has been in existence since 1814. Ever since 1814 the rating law in London as regards non-payment of rates, has been different from the law in the rest of the country. In the Poor Relief Act, 1814, justices of petty sessions were empowered, with the consent of parish officers, to discharge poor persons from the payment of parish rates. As one who has sometimes sat in petty sessions, I feel a good deal of satisfaction in knowing that we are to be relieved of the job which has sometimes fallen to us of having to send to prison some poor wretch who had not the means to pay his rates. All through the years, apparently ever since 1814, there has been a strong consensus of opinion that that condition of affairs ought not to have existed. A number of committees who have considered the question have all pointed out that conditions in London are different from those elsewhere in the country and that there was no reason why that distinction should continue to exist; but things have gone on in the same sweet way. As in the case of many other things it has needed a war to shake us out of the habits of a century. Some of us will be relieved, too, because in administering the law we sometimes went precious near to breaking it, I suppose. It was occasionally conveyed to the justices by the rating authorities themselves that they need not look too closely into things. Still, there were humiliating proceedings. A person had to be summoned, and had to appear before the justices and plead his poverty and prove that he had no means. All those formalities had to be gone through before they were in a position to grant remission of payment. Therefore, I, for one, and I am sure all others who have had anything to do with administering the law, will congratulate the Government and give a hearty welcome to the Bill.

7.23 p.m.

Mr. Ralph Etherton: I want to welcome this little dabble with what is a serious and pressing problem. Progress, however small, is better than no progress at all. It is clearly right that rating authorities in London should have the power, in proper cases, on account of poverty, to reduce or remit payment of


rates. Everyone knows that in the rest of England these provisions have been operative since 1925. As recently as March of this year the House spent time on a Rating Bill which specially affected London, and at that time a number of hon. Members pointed out many of the anomalies and inequalities of the rating law in operation in the Metropolis. Why this and, indeed, other pressing problems of London rating were not then included in that Bill passes comprehension. Be that as it may, my right hon. Friend's predecessor seemed rather complacent concerning the various difficulties. As I understood the position, the problems were not thought suitable to be dealt with at that juncture; but there had been many years of peace during which the problems of London rating might have been tackled. I have no desire to discourage the present Minister of Health and I hope that he will press on, even in dabbles. I believe that he has the necessary drive for the job, if he will allow me to say so, but he will find it an uphill task to overcome the complacency on this matter in his Department and it will demand all his vigour. Complacency on this and other problems will not do, and the nation will call complacency to account.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will appreciate, as was pointed out in March, that the London boroughs and their Standing Joint Committee do not represent the people in this matter. They are prejudiced parties. There are three independent interests to be considered in connection with this problem—the Government, the rate-collecting authorities and the citizens who have to pay the rates. There are already indications that the recent Act will not achieve even that which hon. Members had hoped, and whilst in one sense welcoming this Bill, I commend to my right hon. Friend's consideration the many other and pressing problems in London rating, particularly the inequality of the London County Council precept, which is demanded by the County Council from the boroughs on all property whether the boroughs are able to collect the rates on it or not. I hope that my right hon. Friend will ride roughly over past complacency and bring a fresh and vigorous mind to bear on the many and pressing problems of London rating.

7.27 p.m.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Representing a London borough which has been very adversely affected by conditions arising out of the war, I most cordially welcome this Bill, which will be very acceptable to many people in my constituency. The Parliamentary Secretary very rightly pointed out that people affected were not those who did not pay their rates in the ordinary course of events. To submit them to the ordinary peace-time procedure in London was, I think, a great mistake, and I therefore very much welcome the procedure introduced by this Bill. At the same time I should like to endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Etherton) has said, that this Measure takes only one step towards the solution of the very many problems affecting rating questions. There are others which are infinitely more difficult than this one. I hope that I shall not be out of order in referring to one which has already been mentioned, but the real crux of the problem in London lies in the precept of the London County Council, a precept which is compiled on the basis of rates levied on properties whether they are occupied or unoccupied.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member is going too far away from the subject of this Bill.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I will not pursue that point, but I would urge upon the Minister that sooner or later he will have to face up to the general problem of rating as it affects boroughs in London. It is a very serious matter, because some of them are heavily in debt, and this Bill does not cover that problem. I congratulate the Minister upon having brought in the Bill, but I hope that he will face up to the real crux of the rating question in London and deal with it in the sympathetic energetic and capable manner which he has displayed in handling other problems.

7.30 p.m.

Sir Robert Tasker: I understand that the Bill will come into operation only from the date on which it is passed, and I see no provision for its being made retrospective. The problem of rates dates almost from the commencement of the war. My hon. and gallant Friend has just referred to his con-


stituency; in mine there are hundreds of houses, such as boarding houses and hotels, that are empty. While the rating authority may demand the rates, the owners have no money with which to pay, and the accumulating debts will give rise to much hardship unless the Bill is made retrospective from the beginning of September, 1939. The position of these people is hopeless, but it will not be very much improved by the Bill, except that they will avoid some of the rates when the rating authority has re-assessed them. I should like to have an answer to my interrogation about making the Bill retrospective.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. MacLaren: I would like to impress upon the Minister the point that has just been raised. It would be ungrateful of me if I did not accept the Bill with a certain amount of pleasure; after all, I have had a certain amount to do with it. This Bill will accomplish something, and so far so good; but there will still be the outstanding problem of the people who got into difficulties during the evacuation which took place before and after the declaration of war. Court actions were subsequently taken against some of these people, and that fact, together with the accumulating debts and the decisions of the courts, must be taken into consideration if there is to be retrospective treatment. I would like the Minister or his colleague to throw some light on this matter.

7.33 p.m.

Miss Horsbrugh: Perhaps I might reply at once to the points that have been raised. The Bill applies to arrears of rates, but it cannot apply to decisions already taken before the courts. People in arrears with their rates can now apply to the rating authority. I hope I have made the point clear and that the reply will be satisfactory to hon. Members.
Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
Bill read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for Thursday.—[Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]

Orders of the Day — EVIDENCE AND POWERS OF ATTORNEY BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Powers of attorney executed by certain persons.)

7.35 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, in page 4, line 26, to leave out "statutory declaration," and to insert "statement in writing."
This and the subsequent Amendments relate to the Clause which sets up a special procedure and safeguards for powers of attorney which may be executed outside the United Kingdom by members of the Forces and by those to whom the Bill applies. The powers of attorney not so executed, that is, ordinary powers of attorney executed, do not have to go through this special procedure. It was realised that persons who are asked to act on powers of attorney which had not gone through the special procedure might require to be satisfied that they were not powers to which this Measure applies. Sub-section (3) of the Clause provided that a statutory declaration by a donee of a power would be accepted as conclusive, and would protect third parties. That contemplated a statutory declaration in addition to the document of the power itself. It was represented to us that it might be more convenient if the declaration were contained in the instrument itself. These Amendments, which go together, do not alter the Clause in substance, but provide that a declaration to this effect may be in the instrument itself and made by the donor; or it may be in a separate document, if that is the more convenient course. As we are not providing for a statutory declaration according to the legal definition, we propose to put in a new Sub-section in order to make the penalties which are applicable to false statements in statutory declarations applicable to any false statement in the statement for which the Amendments provide.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: The right hon. and learned Gentleman stated, with reference to Sub-section (3), that he desired to allow declarations to


be made in the power. I would like to ask why the Sub-section could not be drafted to say that the statutory declaration or statement contained in the power could allow of the power of attorney. The reason why I think that might be a better way of doing it is that we are seeking to impose on ordinary statements in writing penalties hitherto applicable only to statutory declarations, and it would be a pity unduly to extend them in that way. I should like the Attorney-General to look into this point.

7.39 p.m.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman is not quite right when he says that these penalties have been applied in the past only to statutory declarations. There is a general provision in the Perjury Act which says that a false statement in any document or instrument which is required to be made, or authorised to be made, by Statute carries equivalent penalties. We have altered the form really for the purpose of simplification. Obviously the simplest procedure is that the statement should be embodied in the power. Then you have one document instead of two. It would be rather awkward to provide for a statutory declaration being in the power. The hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that when we contemplated a document outside the instrument we referred to it as a statement. That, again, was in order that the technical point might not be taken that, in form, it was not a declaration. I hope that no misapprehensions will arise in anybody's mind. Those who require powers of attorney will, of course, familiarise themselves with this Bill. Obviously a statement of this kind is one which of its very nature is of a solemn character in that it is intended for third parties to act upon. I do not think that anyone who puts these necessary words either into the instrument or a separate document could be under an illusion that he is not doing an important act in which accuracy is necessary. I think that in its present form it is quite satisfactory.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made:
In page 4, line 26, leave out "donee," and insert "donor."
In line 27, after "attorney," insert:
(whether or not contained in the instrument creating the power).

In line 30, at the end, insert:
(4) For the purpose of the following enactments (which impose penalties for making false statements in a statutory declaration), namely—
(a) Section five of the Perjury Act, 1911;
(b) Section two of the False Oaths (Scotland) Act, 1933;
(c) Section twenty-one of the Statutory Declarations Act, 1835;
any such statement as is mentioned in the last foregoing Sub-section shall be deemed to be a statutory declaration.—[The Attorney-General.]
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 4 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — WAR CHARITIES BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

7.43 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill follows in the main the lines of the Act passed in 1916 dealing with charities connected with the war of 1914–18. That Act was passed on a report of a Departmental Committee which found that the lack of control had led to very unsatisfactory results. In some cases large sums of money which had been collected were found to be under the control of an individual who had placed them into his own banking account. In other cases no accounts had been published and no proper records had been kept. The report of the Departmental Committee gave instances of cases where sums collected had been almost entirely absorbed in expenses, and it was clear that the charities existed mainly for the benefit of ingenious promoters. In those circumstances the Act of 1916 was generally accepted as a very necessary Measure.
At about the same time street collections were brought under control, and the Act passed last year brought house-to-house collections also into the sphere where there is fairly strict regulation. But other methods of appeal, either by advertisement or through the post, remain


open, and the public is again showing itself responsive to appeals of all kinds for war charities, notwithstanding the severe pressure of increasing taxation. Some doubtful appeals have already been launched, and the Government think it right that the public should once again be given protection against abuse of its present generosity. The present Bill replaces the Act of 1916, and Clause 11 extends the previous definition of a war charity so as to include not only charities connected with the present war, but also any other charities to which the provisions of the Bill may be extended by an Order-in-Council. Under this Bill it will be possible by an Order-in-Council to extend its provisions so as to cover any war or act of aggression in any part of the world and any charitable appeal launched in connection with such a war.
The first Clause provides that no appeal is to be made to the public on behalf of a war charity unless the charity is either registered or granted exemption from registration, and also unless the committee of management of the charity has expressly approved the particular appeal. In England and Wales the registration authority is the council of the county or county borough in which the headquarters of the charity is situated. Provision is expressly made in Clause 1 for exempting church offertories and other charities of a minor character if the registrar is satisfied that the charity is established in good faith and that it is unnecessary in the public interest that the charity should be so registered. Clause 2 sets out the reasons for which the registration authority may refuse to grant registration and also the reasons for which they may order the removal from the register of a charity. These grounds are defined in more detail than they were in the Act of 1916, but they correspond very closely with the similar provisions in the House to House Collections Act which was passed last year. The Clause further provides that in the case of a refusal to register, or removal from the register, the applicant may appeal to the Charity Commissioners. The Charity Commissioners are made the central authority for the purposes of this Act, and they will maintain a central register. Clause 3 lays down conditions to be complied with by registered charities. There must in

the first place be a responsible committee of not less than three persons, and proper accounts must be kept and audited, and submitted to the registration authority. A separate banking account must be kept, and the accounts must be open to inspection by persons authorised by the registration authority or by the Charity Commissioners.
Clauses 4 to 12 provide the necessary machinery. They provide the penalties and definitions and for the application of the Bill to Scotland. The Act of 1916 was not found unduly onerous by reputable charities, and the Charity Commissioners consider that it was on the whole successful in preventing fraudulent and badly administered appeals, though experience revealed certain defects. These defects have been remedied as far as possible in the present Bill, but its main structure is the same as that of the Act of 1916. We hope that the present Bill will effectively suppress undesirable activities without unduly hampering legitimate charitable efforts.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: The hon. Gentleman has made quite clear what the Measure is intended to do. So far as I have been able to gather, this Bill, unlike many that have been brought forward during this emergency, does not apply only to conditions existing during the present war between us and Germany and Italy. It seems to me that any collection made in connection with the Spanish Civil War, for instance, might easily have come under this Measure if it had been an Act at the time; and that collections made in connection with the war between Japan and China—which might continue after the war in Europe has ended—might be covered by this Measure too. I have not read the Bill very carefully, but I have not seen any words in it to indicate that it ends with the present emergency. That, however, was not the real point which led me to speak on the Bill.
The Urban Councils Association are very much concerned as to the change made by this Bill by comparison with the position created by the Act of 1916. I suppose that the hon. Gentleman will know what their criticisms are. In Clause 10, it is provided that, outside London and the Scilly Isles, the registration authority must be "the council of the county or county borough." Other


councils, however big and powerful they may be, will not have the power of registration which they had under the Act of 1916. Naturally, they protest at this omission. I represent a constituency with five urban authorities, some of them containing larger populations than some of the smaller county boroughs. I was brought up in the Rhondda Valley, which is very nearly the largest urban authority in the land, but the Rhondda Council will not be the registration authority under this Act. The district that I have the honour to represent will, under the Bill, be covered by the Lancashire County Council. The central offices of the Lancashire County Council are in Preston, and hon. Members may be astonished to hear that Preston seems to be a very long way from Westhoughton. I am not sure that Westhoughton has any more connection with Preston than it has with London; this registration, so far as many Lancashire urban councils are concerned, might be just as well done in London as in Preston. I should be obliged therefore if the Minister would tell us why the urban councils are left out of the Bill, especially as they were included in the 1916 Act.
I thought that the hon. Gentleman might have been able to give us some information as to why the Bill was introduced at all. Perhaps he will be good enough to tell us whether the Home Office has any substantial evidence that people are developing during this war any vested interests for themselves in these charitable undertakings. I think I speak for all the hon. Members behind me when I say that we welcome the Bill and shall do what we can to assist its passage into law.

7.56 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The Bill is intended to prevent the operation of undesirable charities, and to safeguard the public interest in that connection. In Clause 11 it is provided that the expression "war charity" shall
not include any charity for the blind within the meaning of Section three of the Blind Persons Act, 1920.
That means, as I read the Bill, that we are to have all these very stringent, and very proper, regulations regarding any kind of war charity except those war charities whose object is the assistance of the blind. We all have the most profound sympathy for the blind. I am now speaking directly on behalf of the

National Institute for the Blind. I want it to be understood that I am not attacking or showing the slightest lack of sympathy for the blind. It is because I am most anxious that the blind shall not be associated with something that is not quite sound and straightforward that I ask why it has been thought necessary to exclude charities for the blind. The National Institute for the Blind see no reason whatever for this proposed exemption. Charities for the blind, they say, should not occupy a privileged position under the law, for their administration is neither better nor worse than that of other charities; and it is largely the administration of charities with which the Bill is concerned. I am told that within the last few years certain so-called charities for the blind have been de-registered under Section 3 of the Blind Persons Act, 1920. At this time, when people are showing so much generosity towards charities, and when the appeal for the blind is so great—and it will become greater as the war continues—the utmost care should be taken to see that the cause of the blind is not abused by unscrupulous people. I had thought of putting down an Amendment to leave out this exemption, but it may be that the hon. Member will give me some assurance, in which case I shall not pursue that course.

7.59 p.m.

Sir R. Tasker: The hon. Member for West Houghton (Mr. Rhys Davies) referred to the question of whether this Measure should continue beyond the present emergency. I would cite only one instance, of an institution which was started in the last war and has been carrying on its noble work ever since. I am referring to the Sir Oswald Stoll Foundation at Fulham. There are men cared for who were disabled in the last war for whom we want to find accommodation and have not been able to do so. I wish the Bill were more stringent. I can think of few things so vile as the action of people who trade upon the sufferings of others, and there have been dreadful abuses committed in appealing for money from the benevolent. This is common knowledge to anybody who has been engaged in social work in London or in any other part of the country. I understood from the Minister that an Order-in-Council would not cover any charity except a war charity. I wish that this Bill had been introduced to cover not


only war charities but all charities. I invite the attention of the Minister to that side of the question. However, I believe that the Bill will be welcome, and I am sure that a similar Bill applying to other charities would be equally welcome.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. Peake: I can only speak again by leave of the House, but there have been three or four questions asked to which I should like to give a short reply. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) asked whether the Bill would be permanent. The answer to that question has been given by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn (Sir R. Tasker). As in the case of the 1916 Act, these charities will continue long after the war is over, and it is necessary to control them throughout the duration of their existence. This Bill takes the place of the 1916 Act in relation to charities started during the last war, and similarly as regards charities arising during this war or any other war to which they may be applied under Clause 11. The Act, we hope, will continue to function and to regulate those charities for many years to come. The hon. Member asked whether this Bill could be extended so as to cover charities relating to the war in Spain or to the war in the Far East between China and Japan. If he looks at Clause 11, Sub-section (1, c), he will see that the powers of His Majesty by Order-in-Council are that he may extend the provisions of the Act in regard to
any war or act of aggression, whether occurring before or after the passing of this Act.
Therefore it would be possible by Order-in-Council, as I read the Bill, to extend the scope of the Bill so as to cover charities dealing with the civil war in Spain or with the war in the Far East. The hon. Member raised the more difficult question of the proper authorities for registration and the performance of the other functions under the Bill. The authorities in the Bill are laid down in England and Wales as being the county councils and the county borough councils. Clause 10, Sub-section (1, c), sets out the registration authorities elsewhere than in the City of London and the Scilly Isles. In the 1916 Act the registration authorities were smaller local government units and included borough and urban district

councils. The reason why it has been thought fit to provide in this Bill for the larger authorities only was that a Departmental Committee, which was established in the year 1925 and reported in March, 1927, had the following terms of reference:
To be a Committee to consider and report whether any form of supervision is desirable for collecting charities, and, if so, to make recommendations in the matter.
In the course of their report the Departmental Committee drew attention to the supervision exercised in respect of war charities by these various local authorities, and the conclusions of the Committee are stated on pages14 and 15. They found that the Act of 1916, while it had been strictly administered in London, had apparently been somewhat laxly administered elsewhere in the country, and they attributed that to the responsibility being placed upon the smaller local authorities. In paragraph 45 of their report they said:
The Commissioners"—
the Charity Commissioners—
were inclined to attribute these very serious defects of administration on the part of registration authorities to three main causes: the inclusion of borough and urban district councils, shortage of staff in the offices of registration authorities during the war, and the probability that in some registration areas at least, there was so little work legitimately to be done that it was neglected altogether.
Basing ourselves on that and other paragraphs in the report of the Departmental Committee, we have provided for the larger authorities to be the registration authorities under the Bill. Those registration authorities are also the authorities for registration under the Blind Persons Act, 1920, to which the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) referred. It is a very difficult problem. There is an advantage, obviously, that if you choose a smaller local authority, they will probably handle more expeditiously the small local questions, but, on the other hand, if you multiply the authorities, to a very large extent you will get decisions given on different principles over an area in which the same authorities operate. It seems to me that there are advantages and disadvantages in either course, and I should be prepared to hear the views of any representative body which is interested in this matter before the Bill reaches its further stages.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: In Clause 12 (Application to Scotland), I read:
in Section ten for Sub-section (1)there shall be substituted the following Sub-section—
'(1) For the purposes of this Act the registration authority shall be the county or town council.' "
Do I take it that what we in Scotland call the small burgh council is included in that?

Mr. Peake: Yes, that is so. There is a difference between the registration authorities so far as England and Wales are concerned, and the registration authorities so far as Scotland is concerned.

Sir A. Somerville: Do I gather from what my hon. Friend has said that he would be willing to consider the possibility of leaving power to the smaller authorities and non-county boroughs?

Mr. Peake: I have said that before the Committee stage I shall be prepared to hear the views of the associations which represent those bodies. The hon. Member for Westhoughton asked what definite evidence there was for this Bill. Well, I have always been opposed to mentioning by name particular individuals or particular societies which put forward charitable appeals. I have seen it happen before in this House, and it sometimes leads one into difficulties. I must, therefore, ask the hon. Member to accept my assurance that the Government have definite evidence that there is a necessity for this Bill.

Mr. Lunn: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether voluntary hospitals enter into this Bill and are dealt with or not?

Mr. Peake: Voluntary hospitals, if they wish to launch an appeal within the meaning of Clause 11 of the Bill, will have to proceed in exactly the same way as other charities. The hon. Member for East Fife asked why it is that under Clause 11 there is the proviso that the expression "war charity" does not include any charity for the blind within the meaning of the Blind Persons Act of 1920. The reason for this is that by this Bill the War Charities Act of 1916 is repealed, but the Blind Persons Act of 1920 remains on the Statute Book, and charities for the blind are already strictly regulated by the Blind Persons Act of 1920, Section 3 of which provides:
The War Charities Act, 1916, shall apply to charities for the blind as if it were herein

re-enacted and in terms made applicable to such charities, subject, however, to the following modifications.
There is a complete code of regulations for charities appealing on behalf of blind persons. These provisions are not repealed by the present Bill.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Is my hon. Friend quite satisfied that the provisions under the Blind Persons Act are as strong as those contained in this new Bill with regard to war charities for the blind?

Mr. Peake: I think that in most respects they are as strong, and certainly in one important respect they are very much stronger, because under Section 3 (1, b) of the Blind Persons Act, 1920, there is a proviso that the registration authority may refuse to register a charity if they are satisfied that its objects are adequately attained by a charity registered under the Act. That is to say, under the Blind Persons Act, 1920, there is a definite provision against redundant appeals. That is a thing we have examined very carefully, but which, I am sorry to say, we are unable for very important reasons to incorporate in the Bill before the House.

8.14 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: Might I express my thanks to the Minister for promising to look further into the question of registration authorities? I can assure him that this matter is looked upon as one of some importance. As a member of a small local council and a large county council, I am as confident as the Commissioners that the work can be, and will be, done as well by the smaller authority as the larger body. I suggest that if duties are thrown upon a county council, it will be their job to work with the local authority. While there may be a case at other times for arguing for an extension of the authority of the county council, I suggest that this is scarcely the time to interfere with the duty of the smaller bodies. I would like to have a copy of the document from which the hon. Gentleman has read in order to fortify myself with the arguments put forward by the Royal Commission. I am rather inclined to think that Royal Commissions are confined a little too much to London and do not sufficiently carefully take into account the evidence they find elsewhere. I want to assure the Minister that it is the intention of some Members who are particularly interested in this question to put down an


Amendment on the Report stage in order that they might substitute the wording to be found in the Act of 1916. If he will give it his sympathetic consideration, I am quite certain we can get unanimity on this question.
Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
Bill read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for Thursday.—[Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]

BATTLE OF NARVIK (B.B.C. BROADCAST).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]

8.17 p.m.

Commander Sir Archibald South by: On Whit Monday the British Broadcasting Corporation broadcast an account of the Battle of Narvik during which impersonations of both living and dead persons were given over the air. Many people, I think, were disgusted at the unpardonably bad taste of that particular broadcast. No one could object to a broadcast of an account of the battle itself, but any attempt to reconstruct personal conversations and orders given by men who lost their lives in action is, I submit to the House, a revolting innovation which ought to be stopped at once. The widow of a gallant officer who lost his life leading this attack on Narvik wrote a letter to the "Times" which I think expresses what most of us feel. Mrs. Warburton-Lee said this:
Had they told the story simply and correctly, it would have contained all the drama necessary, and no one would have listened to it with greater pride than I, but to impersonate the voices of the living and dead is unpardonable.
On 16th May Mr. Val Gielgud, who signs himself "Director of Features and Drama of the B.B.C.," wrote a letter to the "Times" expressing sympathy with the feelings that prompted Mrs. Warburton-Lee to write her letter and saying that it was a matter of deep distress to the producer responsible for the programme that its effect should have been what Mrs. Warburton-Lee said that it was. Mr. Val Gielgud said in his letter that the programme was described as an "impres-

sion" and not as a "reconstruction" and that no attempt had been made to reproduce the accurate dialogue either of officers or of men engaged in the action. He also said that the script was submitted to the Press division of the Admiralty and a survivor of His Majesty's Ship "Hardy," and went on to say that every excision and suggestion was immediately accepted. Anyone who read Mr. Gielgud letter in the "Times" would naturally have supposed that it contained a truthful representation of the facts and an expression of real regret on the part of the B.B.C. for the injury done to the feelings of those who heard the broadcast. Unfortunately, neither of these suppositions would have been correct.
In the first place, on page 18 of the "Radio Times" of 10th May, the programme was definitely described as "a dramatic reconstruction of a great naval feat of arms," and in two other places in the same issue the word "reconstruction" is used. If Mr. Val Gielgud does not read the "Radio Times," it is time he did. After all, he was for a short time a member of its staff. It appears, therefore, that when in his letter to the "Times" Mr. Val Gielgud said that the programme was not a "reconstruction," he was stating something which was at variance with the officially advertised programme in the B.B.C.'s own organ, the "Radio Times."
As regards his assertion that excisions and suggestions of officer survivors were immediately accepted, Paymaster-Lieutenant Stanning, a gallant officer who won imperishable fame for his conduct during the battle, felt himself obliged to write a letter to the "Times," on 17th May, in which he protested at the broadcast and stated quite categorically that whereas Mr. Val Gielgud had said that excisions and suggestions were accepted, the officer who was supposed to have made the excisions and suggestions did not confirm in conversation with him the truth of Mr. Val Gielgud's statement. Further, in his opinion as a naval officer who was present at the naval action, Paymaster-Lieutenant Stanning said that the broadcast as given was not one which would have been agreed to by any naval officer who had read the script. Further, he said that it was not correct for Mr. Val Gielgud to say that only his own name, that is, Paymaster-Lieutenant


Stanning, and those of two able seamen survivors were mentioned, because the name of Chief Stoker Styles was represented as a survivor when, in fact, he had been unfortunately killed. I leave it to the House to imagine the feelings of distress which must have been caused in the minds of the relatives of Chief Stoker Styles when they heard this broadcast.
I put down a Question to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Information on 29th May regarding this broadcast, and in his reply my right hon. Friend said that the B.B.C. deeply regretted that any pain had been caused by the broadcast and that in future the greatest care would be taken to avoid anything which could possibly distress the relatives of the fallen. In answer to a Supplementary Question by me, my right hon. Friend said that he would see to it that on no future occasion would broadcasts of such unpardonable bad taste be allowed. He gave a categorical assurance that they would not be allowed. It was a definite undertaking from the Minister of Information and from the B.B.C. that broadcasts of this kind would not be repeated. My Question was answered between 3o'clock and 3·15 on the afternoon of 29th May, and at 2 a.m. on 30th May, less than 12 hours after the undertaking had been given in this House, the B.B.C. repeated the same broadcast, word for word, in the Empire programme.
On 5th June I asked my right hon. Friend whether he was aware of this, and how he reconciled this action with the undertaking given to me on 29th May. He replied that he was not aware that the broadcast was to be repeated in the Empire programme, and stated, as I am quite sure he would, that had he known it was going to be repeated, he would have done his best to prevent it. One thing is certain, and that is that the B.B.C. has let the Minister of Information down in the most unpardonable way. My right hon. Friend informed me on 5th June that he was not in a position to take any disciplinary action against the B.B.C. official concerned, but he assured me that the necessary steps would be taken to prevent a repetition of an occurrence such as this. What steps have been taken? On 29th May this House was assured that broadcasts of this kind would not be allowed in the future. Within 12 hours the B.B.C. reproduced

exactly the same broadcast. On 29th May the B.B.C. allowed the Minister of Information to apologise in this House on their behalf for the pain that their first broadcast had occasioned. Within 12 hours they repeated the identical broadcast.
I ask the House, Could any disobedience have been more deliberate? Do the B.B.C. take up the attitude that they did not think it would matter repeating the broadcast in the Empire programme because it takes place at 2 a.m. and that therefore nobody would be listening to it? I should like a categorical assurance one way or the other whether this is the position taken up by the B.B.C. If it be so, if they think that by repeating it at 2 a.m. nobody will know, then it seems to me that their undertaking and their apology mean nothing whatever and that they reserve to themselves the right to flout and disobey the Minister of Information just whenever they like. Broadcasting at the present time is a most vital part of our national war effort, and it is a form of war effort of the utmost potentiality. We cannot afford to allow it to remain in the hands of officials who owe no allegiance to anyone but themselves and who arrogate to themselves the right to do as they please. I submit that it is time that this organisation came under the control of a Minister of the Crown who could be answerable for the organisation in this House. As it is, the Minister of Information comes to this House and is humiliated when he makes an apology on behalf of the B.B.C. and gives an undertaking regarding future broadcasts. We take disciplinary action against our sailors, soldiers and airmen who are guilty of disobedience, and it seems to me that the B.B.C. should come under the same kind of regulation.
The Director-General of the B.B.C. is presumably the ultimately responsible authority for what takes place at the B.B.C. But it would appear from Mr. Val Gielgud's letter to the "Times" that he as Director of Features and Drama, accepts the responsibility for this particular broadcast. If that be so, then he is the person directly responsible for what has occurred. It is he, therefore, who allowed the Minister of Information to apologise in this House and to give the undertaking which was promptly broken by the B.B.C. If he is the Director of


Features and Drama, he must have known perfectly well that this broadcast was going to be repeated in its original form in the Empire broadcast early on the morning of 30th May, less than 12 hours after the apology of the B.B.C. had been made. I should like to know what qualifications Mr. Val Gielgud has for holding his present position. In order to acquaint myself with his qualifications before making these remarks, I went to that repository of information, "Who's Who." There I found that he has had a somewhat variegated career. He has been secretary to a Member of Parliament, an actor, a sub-editor of a comic paper, and, apparently, he joined the "Radio Times" in 1928. Doubtless his past experiences justify his appointment as Dramatic Director of the B.B.C. It may interest the House to know, in passing, that among his recreations I find that he is said to enjoy golf and the society of Siamese cats, also talking and travel. I suggest that the best thing he can do would be to learn to tell the exact truth when he writes letters to the "Times" and to travel as far away from the B.B.C. as he can.
On all sides we hear complaints and criticism of the B.B.C. and its officials. This is not an isolated instance. It is a particularly bad instance, and it is time somebody was put into this stable to clean it up. War conditions demand that these matters should be dealt with immediately. The original broadcast on Whit Monday was described by a writer of a letter to the "Times" as a vulgarly sensational attempt at a dramatisation of a wonderful exploit and one which can only have caused distaste and distress to many. That is perfectly true. It has caused great distress to the relatives of many gallant men who fell in battle at Narvik, and there should be some guarantee that similar vulgar, sensational reconstructions should not be allowed to occur. If that can be achieved, then this incident will have served a useful purpose. It has shown up the administration of the B.B.C, and I hope the result will be that it will be possible for my right hon. Friend to introduce some discipline into that organisation.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. MacLaren: I will not follow the course taken by the hon. and

gallant Member for Epsom (Sir A. South by), but I hope that what I am about to say will not be misunderstood. My own views in regard to what has happened in Italy have been expressed already in the House. It has been one of the most disastrous acts recorded in history, this action of Signor Mussolini in entering the war. I wish to say a few words, however, in regard to the broadcast speech, last night, by the Minister of Information. I do not do it in any critical manner, but I feel he did not do justice to his case. There was bound to be a good deal of reaction on anyone who heard what had taken place in Italy, but I must say that as I listened to the Minister, last night, I was rather shocked. It is self-evident to anyone who knows Italy and the Italians that they are not united behind Mussolini. I should have thought that it would have been much better if an appeal had been made direct to the people of Italy, rather than to take the line that the Minister did last night. I should like to know whether, when these great occasions arise which necessitate an authoritative statement from the Government to be broadcast, that statement is drawn, reviewed and passed by responsible Members of the Cabinet before it is publicly uttered.
I think it would have been far better if challenges had not been thrown out last night, and if reminders, which only irritate people who have been our friends, had been left out. There is a vast difference between the people of Italy and the people of Germany psychologically and in other ways. Could not an appeal have been made bringing in St. Catharine and Francis of Assisi? I should have thought something along the line of an appeal to the lives of the Saints, and of St. Thomas Aquinas in particular, would have been more appropriate, and the question asked whether this land with Catholic devotion had suddenly fallen so far as to join with the pagan hordes of Germany. I think it would have been more beneficial to have appealed to their Catholic devotion than suddenly to have reminded them of Caporetto. Acceding the point that the Minister himself may have been rather heated up, as it were, and in the passion of the moment giving rein to his feelings at the time, I do hope that on future occasions that psychology will be understood and appreciated more before these public pronouncements are


made. It would be far better if we had tried to put in a wedge between the people of Italy, and those who are striving to put them into this destructional enterprise, rather than that we should estrange them and put them behind Mussolini by saying irritating things such as were uttered last night.
I hope the Minister will forgive me for intervening. I hope he will believe that what I have said I have said with as much sincerity as I dare say he felt when he made his pronouncements last night. We should make more friends on the Continent of Europe and not make remarks which may turn possible friends into veritable enemies. I do hope that in future such speeches will be taken more seriously by the Government and that Government responsibility will be consulted before they are uttered.

8.38 p.m.

The Minister of Information (Mr. Duff Cooper): Two entirely different questions have been raised, one with notice, as is usual, and one without notice. The hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) does not like my broadcast. Well, I am encouraged by the fact that when he last spoke in this House on the subject of broadcasting he condemned every speaker, including the Secretary of State for War, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information, and nearly every production of the B.B.C. I was fortified upon that occasion by the fact that nearly everyone who spoke afterwards, and especially Members of his own party, disagreed with him. It shows how difficult it is when addressing audiences of many millions to please them all. The hon. Member has a mind of exquisite refinement and taste, and has a very high standard of artistic merit. The last time he spoke he really left one with the impression that he thought the B.B.C. should devote themselves to nothing else but Beethoven; and it is not only music-hall entertainment which he condemned, but also the serious statements of Ministers of the Crown.
He condemns me for not having suggested last night that there was a possible division between the Italian people and their Leader. Possibly he has not been able to refresh his memory by reading the text of what I said. If he had done so he would have found that that was precisely what I said. How tragic

it was, I said, that a great people should put their faith into the hands of one bad man, and should become, when they did that, the accomplices and victims of his crimes. I said that if there was a democratic system prevailing in Italy, Italy would not have gone to war, and that the will of the people would have prevailed. Surely that was exactly what the hon. Gentleman wanted me to say? After that I went on to use strong language. I do not believe, when you are at war with a nation, that you are going to defeat that nation by being very polite and begging their pardon. We have tried that for nine months with Germany, and see what it has brought us to. It is nonsense to suggest that there are two Germanys, the good Germany and the bad Germany, and that the good Germany at any moment is going to rise up and throw over its Leader. The only people who will rise up and defeat their Leader are those people who have been defeated by their enemies. I do not believe that is so, and I do not intend to change my belief. I do not believe you can win wars by being very civil to your enemy and trying to persuade them with soft words and flattery and praise to come over to your side. That is not the way in which war has ever been fought or won. I suggested, and I think rightly, that there were differences between the people of Italy, and that if the people of Italy had had the decision in their own hands they would not be at war to-day.
Turning to the subject upon which my hon. and gallant Friend addressed the House, I am surprised that he has raised this matter again because, when he raised it last time, I said that a mistake had been committed, that I regretted that mistake and apologised for it, and that I had taken every step to make sure it would not occur again. He may say with truth that there were two mistakes, because I said that a similar broadcast would not take place on future occasions and the same broadcast took place the same night. I have endeavoured to explain why that error occurred. The assurance that it would not occur again was given, not in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend's first Question, but in reply to a Supplementary Question. The B.B.C., like other Departments of the Government, do not immediately the same afternoon—they


did not in the past, but they will in future—check up all the supplementary replies given by Ministers in order to make sure that those replies or any pledges given in them will be carried out.
In the ordinary way, if a Minister makes a statement in reply to a Supplementary and there is a promise given in such a reply, it is improbable that it would be broken or interfered with the same night. It is customary in every Department to read the Official Report next morning, to take note of any assurances given and to take the necessary steps to see that those assurances are carried out. That has been the course hitherto followed in the B.B.C., but as a result of this unfortunate incident they have taken steps to make sure that immediately after Questions have been put and answered a full report shall be received at the B.B.C. in order that any pledges given shall be faithfully carried out. I hope that that will prevent a repetition of this regrettable incident. I discussed the matter in the morning with the heads of the B.B.C., and they agreed with me that this incident was regrettable and was in bad taste.
Again I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that even in these matters there are two opinions. He and I are entirely in agreement as to the bad taste of this particular episode, but it received very favourable reports in such reputable papers as the "Manchester Guardian" and the "Glasgow Herald." That shows there are two sides to every question, especially questions of taste. While I give my hon. and gallant Friend an assurance that similar incidents—by which I mean incidents purporting to record events in the war in which voices of the dead are reproduced—should never take place again—and I have the assurance of the Director-General of the B.B.C. that they shall not—I cannot give him an assurance that no entertainment will ever be given

that will not be in execrable taste. There are many things which he and I and the hon. Member for Burslem consider execrable taste, but which many people, even in this House, may consider extremely amusing and diverting. We have to remember the magnitude of the task of the B.B.C. For 24 hours a day stuff is going out from the B.B.C. to every quarter of the globe. It is being listened to by many millions of people. The millions who are satisfied do not bother to write to the papers or to say so, but the one or two who are shocked and who find fault are those who make complaints. Those complaints will never cease in the most admirable administration that we can devise.
My hon. and gallant Friend objects because I have not the power to inflict disciplinary action on those who were guilty of this offence. It would not be of very great assistance if I had that power. I have found the Director-General and the authorities of the B.B.C. perfectly willing and eager to accept my advice and guidance, and, indeed, my instructions on all important matters. I do not intend to take over the administration of the B.B.C. or to be responsible in any way for their entertainment programme. So far as pronouncements on political subjects and reports of news are concerned, however, I have satisfied myself that machinery now exists whereby I can exercise complete control over what is said on important political matters. On the whole, I am satisfied also that the machinery as now improved will prevent a repetition of the incident which I regret as much as my hon. and gallant Friend.
Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at a Quarter before Nine o'Clock.